How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[cesmonkey]

The Austrian colonel is back with another analysis video:

 

[Vet 0369]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

I want to know what they said/did to convince the guys in this tape that things would end any differently from how it ended for the multiple platoons of dead AFVs they were driving right past? I fully expect in a week or so we will get more tape of more suicidal mobiks dying in the middle of what will then be a full company of wrecked AFVs. The Russian systems only strength is its ability to convince large quantities of people to commit suicide. That is the lock we have to pick.

Edit: There some strong parallels with Imperial Japan at some level.

It isn't wish talk, it is a rational strategic response to the stated intentions of our primary adversary. Taiwan is the linchpin of the the economic miracle in East Asia. The CCCP understands this, that is why they are frothing at the mouth to control it. For 70 plus years we have been able to deter them remotely, that time is passing very, very quickly. In addition to being a truly unmistakeable signal of U.S. commitment, the Marines could be used to drag the entire Taiwanese military up to speed. If we have to get that division there after the war starts, under a hail of Chinese anti shipping missiles starting AT LEAST  five hundred miles from the Chinese coast it will be beyond expensive in terms of casualties. China is actually getting ready for this fight, if we don't we will be very, very sorry.

The U.S.M.C. has also addressed this issue. The Commandant of the Marine Corps (who now, thankfully has a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff), has also already addressed this eventuality. I must admit that I have much more confidence in the decisions of the Commandant than I have in the suggestions of anyone on this or any other forum.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

You're right, I was going into the realm of speculation there, and I should have made that more clear. I don't have access to what's being said behind closed doors at high level meetings in Nato/EU/US.

But I think there's much more being said in those meetings than publicly. And I think it would go a long way to explain the slow drip of weapons to Ukraine - the aim would be to prevent Ukraine from being overrun, but at the same time prevent a total Russian defeat.

Now that Russia has been pushed back into territories they consider their own, the western appetite for more aid to Ukraine is not what it used to be. But if Russians manage to start making meaningful progress towards Kyiv, I think we will suddenly see a substantial increase in the supply situation.

I agree that there's a lot more going on than we are aware of and some of it explains the "drip drip" problem.  But scaling back support for Ukraine will not maintain the status quo, at least not for long.  They know it, but their political opponents don't care, which is why they are pushing to aid Ukraine despite major political risks.

Steve

[dan/california]

you will be invisible to Ukrainian drones, we promise!

[MSBoxer]

10 minutes ago, dan/california said:

you will be invisible to Ukrainian drones, we promise!

Please tell me I am not the only one that thought Snuffleupagus joined the dark side!

[cesmonkey]

https://t.me/legionoffreedom/1034

Quote

Legion "Freedom of Russia"
We report: the assault groups of the Legion completed all assigned tasks and successfully returned to the territory of Ukraine.

Propagandists have “no losses” in any unclear situation

️ Write down what really happened: today, December 17, assault troops of the Legion “Freedom of Russia” entered the Belgorod region of the Russian Federation, destroyed the platoon stronghold of Putin’s troops nearby Terebreno, whom we know, completed the assigned tasks and have already returned. Photos/videos will come later, once we catch our breath.

P.S. On the way back, we left an interesting puzzle... for the “specialists” of Putin’s engineering troops. Go ahead and update your minefield maps.

P.P.S. And to all the tongues of the Kremlin writing about the “Ukrainian DRG” once again (for the stupid, we explain): We are Russian volunteers. And we have the right to come home at any time. Moreover, for a good purpose.

 

[fireship4]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

This is insane.  The far right nutjob wants to be right so badly that he is embracing liberals progressive theory?  One cannot cherry pick liberal theory...that is not how it works.  If we are going to somehow ascend it all and embrace brother Russia for the good of all mankind, then one has to do the rest as well.  Immigration, social programs (universal healthcare), social equity, liberal capitalism and of course, climate change.

Liberalism is so broad, it must be cherry-picked!  And I believe only a minority of branches might demand support for your listed positions.

Edited December 17, 2023 by fireship4

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

Liberalism is so broad, it must be cherry-picked!  And I believe only a minority of branches might demand support for your listed positions.

You have clearly never lived in Canada.  

[The_Capt]

12 minutes ago, MSBoxer said:

Please tell me I am not the only one that thought Snuffleupagus joined the dark side!

That creature is pure evil..

[danfrodo]

Drones drones drones.  And some anti drone.  plus andiivka summary:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/12/17/2212145/-Ukraine-Update-The-Battle-of-Avdiivka-is-showing-both-Ukraine-s-greatest-strengths-and-weaknesses?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=top_news_slot_4&pm_medium=web

 

[fireship4]

13 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

You have clearly never lived in Canada.  

Nope, notwithstanding, your definition of liberal is very narrow.

I have known several Canadians, the last one I sat chatting with for a good couple of hours as the sun went down on my weekend on the coast.  He was quite loud, but good to talk to.  Reminded me of Rich Hall now that I think of it.  Was wearing some kind of military surplus (not camoflaged) he bought while here.  I remember very little of our conversation.  Oh I think he had a sandwich he was eating.  Oh wait, I think I might have had one too... in any case no I have never been to Canada.

Edited December 17, 2023 by fireship4

[danfrodo]

The usual RU stuff blowing up.  And measles outbreak in RU.  In 2023.  Not sure if due to vax shortage or vax stupidity.  Sadly, probably coming to some high anti vax communities in the US soon.  More bradley shredding of baddies, and a drone doing a close up w IFV carrying snow-camo troops -- I am guessing the ones w snow camo are pros, not mobiks.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/12/17/2212227/-More-Russian-stuff-blowing-up-Russia-absorbing-more-big-losses?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web

 

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Being totally honest, I was very surprised by the stalemate of this summer.  My assessment was that the UA would break that line and likely threaten that entire corridor.

Those of us here who were thinking Ukraine had a good chance of isolating Melitopol had solid reasons to be optimistic.  As you laid out, there were a lot of facts pointing in that direction.  But Ukraine wasn't even able to isolate Tokmak.  Which means we missed something significant.

You listed off a bunch of things on the battlefield that we either underestimated or underappreciated prior to the start of the counter offensive.  I think they are all valid and contributing factors to Ukraine's limited territorial results.  Some more than others.  However, I do not think any of those were decisive in holding Ukraine back.

Despite all of the challenges you listed, and the losses Ukraine took discovering them, I have argued that they came close to breaking through towards Tokmak.  If Ukraine had a couple brigades still in reserve by late Fall I think they might have been able to do it.  But they didn't.

I'm of the opinion that the single biggest factor in holding back Ukraine was Russia's ability to regenerate manpower without resorting to another mobilization.  Russia bumbled around with this for most of 2022 and into the start of 2023, seemingly running out of readily available volunteers and (by Spring) prisoners.  This is what we had in front of us when assessing Ukraine's chances of success.

Unfortunately, and quite unexpectedly, the Russian government figured out a "magic formula" to raise, equip, and partially train ~20k per month.  Ukraine simply could not kill Russians fast enough to achieve a local collapse.

Since I personally was counting on a new mobilization to potentially destabilize Russia, the fact that Putin was able to avoid it changed my calculations quite radically.  My hopes were changed from Melitopol to Tokmak, then from Tokmak to corrosion because of this.

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So what now?  Well Ukraine digs in and hold on.  We might see some tactical offensives but over the winter it may just be static.  Unless the UA have a rabbit somewhere.  Maybe they can see a weakness in the line and are waiting for the cold weather to exploit.  I do not know.  Now is the time to lean on operational objectives.  The primary one being, do not let the RA advance.  The second, kill the RA as much as possible at high ratios.  The third, wait for opportunity and seize it when it comes.  Last, make opportunity if you can...learn faster than the RA.

Yes, the best strategy at this point is to let Russia pick a hill to take and make sure it's one they die on.  I don't see any alternative.

Steve

[The_Capt]

34 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

Nope, notwithstanding, your definition of liberal is very narrow.

I have known several Canadians, the last one I sat chatting with for a good couple of hours as the sun went down on my weekend on the coast.  He was quite loud, but good to talk to.  Reminded me of Rich Hall now that I think of it.  Was wearing some kind of military surplus (not camoflaged) he bought while here.  I remember very little of our conversation.  Oh I think he had a sandwich he was eating.  Oh wait, I think I might have had one too... in any case no I have never been to Canada.

Dude, define it with sandwiches however you like.  Just don’t try and use principles of collectivism, soft power and international rules based order to justify Russia in Ukraine and we will get along just fine.

[FlemFire]

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

With reasonable expectations, such as by Fall getting down to Melitopol on a broad front, I think the facts in June 2023 were supportive.  Which means we missed something significant.

You missed air support and artillery supremacy of any kind. Those are, in fact, extremely significant which begs the question as to how they could be 'missed' at all. 

 

Quote

Yes, the best strategy at this point is to let Russia pick a hill to take and make sure it's one they die on.  I don't see any alternative.

I said back in January that Ukraine needs to operate a loose defense and let Russia invite itself in. The point would be to inflict losses not to "corrode" but to shock Russian sensibilities via major losses, frankly the only remotely possible avenue for a military route to victory and even then it is only to leverage Russia's internal socio-economic stability against it. For some reason, people said I was nuts and that Ukraine had this in the bag. 

 

[The_Capt]

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Those of us here who were thinking Ukraine had a good chance of isolating Melitopol had solid reasons to be optimistic.  As you laid out, there were a lot of facts pointing in that direction.  But Ukraine wasn't even able to isolate Tokmak.  Which means we missed something significant.

You listed off a bunch of things on the battlefield that we either underestimated or underappreciated prior to the start of the counter offensive.  I think they are all valid and contributing factors to Ukraine's limited territorial results.  Some more than others.  However, I do not think any of those were decisive in holding Ukraine back.

Despite all of the challenges you listed, and the losses Ukraine took discovering them, I have argued that they came close to breaking through towards Tokmak.  If Ukraine had a couple brigades still in reserve by late Fall I think they might have been able to do it.  But they didn't.

I'm of the opinion that the single biggest factor in holding back Ukraine was Russia's ability to regenerate manpower without resorting to another mobilization.  Russia bumbled around with this for most of 2022 and into the start of 2023, seemingly running out of readily available volunteers and (by Spring) prisoners.  This is what we had in front of us when assessing Ukraine's chances of success.

Unfortunately, and quite unexpectedly, the Russian government figured out a "magic formula" to raise, equip, and partially train ~20k per month.  Ukraine simply could not kill Russians fast enough to achieve a local collapse.

Since I personally was counting on a new mobilization to potentially destabilize Russia, the fact that Putin was able to avoid it changed my calculations quite radically.  My hopes were changed from Melitopol to Tokmak, then from Tokmak to corrosion because of this.

Yes, the best strategy at this point is to let Russia pick a hill to take and make sure it's one they die on.  I don't see any alternative.

Steve

I am not sure that Russian force generation was the defining factor.  Those hastily trained troops should not have been able to hold those lines with the force density we saw.  We are talking conscripts facing US C4ISR and modern weaponry.  Standard doctrine says it takes about a full battalion - around 1000 troops to hold a km.  That is enough for solid forward density, depth, a reserve, support and some sort of troop rotations.

 Even with minefields.  RA was doing it with 300 troops (from the Russi report from Sep).  Tossing away rotations -because Russia- that means they had about a company per km with maybe a bit of depth and no reserves.  Very limited support.  Basically 150 guys with drones and ATGMs.  A few tanks to pull up for sniping. And AH.  With conscripts?!  While being hammered by western modern artillery, deep strike and UAS.  About the only thing the RA had was EW and that was not airtight.

So yes, the RA was able to keep up with losses.  But the very low density of the original requirement simply does not compute.  If I only need to replace 300 per km at pace, the bar is way lower than it used to be.  Like at Kyiv, the UA likely had ridiculous force ratio advantages…and still could not break that line.  If 300 mobiks are all that is needed to hold a mine belt something has fundamentally changed.  Finally this wasn’t one attack.  They did it for the entire summer.   We are talking 800km of frontage.  We know their vehicle fleets are badly depleted.  Artillery is struggling.  C4ISR must have improved - this matches observations.  And yet they held.  

We can’t even blame the UA.  They are about as highly trained and equipped as we could make em.  They held off the RA and collapsed last year with less.  So I still do not know what is it.  UAS + mines + standoff weapons?  C4ISR integration.  Or maybe as you say, it was a far closer run race than we saw.  

[fireship4]

18 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Dude, define it with sandwiches however you like.  Just don’t try and use principles of collectivism, soft power and international rules based order to justify Russia in Ukraine and we will get along just fine.

What?!  I can't make a pithy remark until I know what you're on about.

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

What?!  I can't make a pithy remark until I know what you're on about.

Sorry, you came late.  We gotta a guy stringing together just about the weirdest framework to somehow blame this war on the West, while at the same time arguing we should basically abandon Ukraine as a result.  It is pretty incoherent and goes all over the place but seems to attack 1) the causes of this war as unjustified, 2) Opposing Russia in Ukraine is bad for global good (?). Because China, and 3) Ukraine has lost already so it is all a waste.  Basically the same weird MAGA lines strung together to somehow justify opposing the war.

The weird was when said poster started pulling in liberal theorIes, namely collectivism and global order, as some sort of soft power alternative to opposing what is either a legal war or one we forced Ukraine into (gotta be honest it is really hard to follow).

So my point wasn’t a dissertation on liberalism, it was to point out that someone who is espousing far-right conspiracies trying to employ liberalism was nuts.  Particularly when other elements of liberalism - that I recognize from my own nation- would very likely be vehemently opposed by said poster based on his narrative.  This has been going on for a couple days now.  Sounds like you just walked in and want to compare political systems but that is really off topic and frankly kinda outside the entire discussion.  Anyway with luck Steve will ban the guy or he will simply leave.

[FlemFire]

Correction, the liberal method was to be applied in the early 90s. The horse was out of the barn by the time Yeltsin was "elected" again in '96 and definitely toast by the early 00s. None of this is far-right and, as mentioned, has been backed by multiple thinkers on the subject, including George Kennan, the preeminent statesman on all-things-Russia during the Cold War. At this stage (late 2023), who is at "fault" is actually immaterial, as mentioned. If one wants to think it was 100% one side or the other, that's their prerogative. This forum's rules operate on believing in absolutes. I'll abide by said rules (and I also think the discussion is worn out regardless).

 

I'm more curious about what books are being read that allow one to ignore basic military fundamentals. I'm reading the text-version of a snipe hunt trying to figure out why the Ukrainian counter-offensive went sideways. Please provide your sources for thinking it could work. Data, military theory, examples in history, etc. Again, I'm genuinely curious. Please avoid platitudes or empty derisions toward one side or the other. Hitching the real-world to that sort of nonsense is how people got surprised in the first place.

 

[fry30]

Flemfire, the way you argue invites criticism. In fact, all you seem to do is argue and pat yourself on the back. I enjoy lurking this thread, maybe you should do the same. 

[danfrodo]

16 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Sorry, you came late.  We gotta a guy stringing together just about the weirdest framework to somehow blame this war on the West, while at the same time arguing we should basically abandon Ukraine as a result.  It is pretty incoherent and goes all over the place but seems to attack 1) the causes of this war as unjustified, 2) Opposing Russia in Ukraine is bad for global good (?). Because China, and 3) Ukraine has lost already so it is all a waste.  Basically the same weird MAGA lines strung together to somehow justify opposing the war.

The weird was when said poster started pulling in liberal theorIes, namely collectivism and global order, as some sort of soft power alternative to opposing what is either a legal war or one we forced Ukraine into (gotta be honest it is really hard to follow).

So my point wasn’t a dissertation on liberalism, it was to point out that someone who is espousing far-right conspiracies trying to employ liberalism was nuts.  Particularly when other elements of liberalism - that I recognize from my own nation- would very likely be vehemently opposed by said poster based on his narrative.  This has been going on for a couple days now.  Sounds like you just walked in and want to compare political systems but that is really off topic and frankly kinda outside the entire discussion.  Anyway with luck Steve will ban the guy or he will simply leave.

Dude does love the sound of his own voice.  Goes on & on & on saying something-ish, I guess.  (not you, fireship4 the other guy).  but hey, he knew what was going to happen so clearly enjoys the gift of prophesy and feels compelled to share his great gifts of knowledge, both past & future, with us.

[cyrano01]

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I am not sure that Russian force generation was the defining factor.  Those hastily trained troops should not have been able to hold those lines with the force density we saw.  We are talking conscripts facing US C4ISR and modern weaponry.  Standard doctrine says it takes about a full battalion - around 1000 troops to hold a km.  That is enough for solid forward density, depth, a reserve, support and some sort of troop rotations.

 Even with minefields.  RA was doing it with 300 troops (from the Russi report from Sep).  Tossing away rotations -because Russia- that means they had about a company per km with maybe a bit of depth and no reserves.  Very limited support.  Basically 150 guys with drones and ATGMs.  A few tanks to pull up for sniping. And AH.  With conscripts?!  While being hammered by western modern artillery, deep strike and UAS.  About the only thing the RA had was EW and that was not airtight.

So yes, the RA was able to keep up with losses.  But the very low density of the original requirement simply does not compute.  If I only need to replace 300 per km at pace, the bar is way lower than it used to be.  Like at Kyiv, the UA likely had ridiculous force ratio advantages…and still could not break that line.  If 300 mobiks are all that is needed to hold a mine belt something has fundamentally changed.  Finally this wasn’t one attack.  They did it for the entire summer.   We are talking 800km of frontage.  We know their vehicle fleets are badly depleted.  Artillery is struggling.  C4ISR must have improved - this matches observations.  And yet they held.  

We can’t even blame the UA.  They are about as highly trained and equipped as we could make em.  They held off the RA and collapsed last year with less.  So I still do not know what is it.  UAS + mines + standoff weapons?  C4ISR integration.  Or maybe as you say, it was a far closer run race than we saw.  

Hell, at least we were in 'good' (for certain values of good) copmany in thinking that the Russian defensive density was breakable. here's RAND from July 2023 telling us that we are the Normandy 1944 rather than France/Flanders 1916/17...

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/07/a-winnable-war.html

 

 

[FlemFire]

3 minutes ago, cyrano01 said:

Hell, at least we were in 'good' (for certain values of good) copmany in thinking that the Russian defensive density was breakable. here's RAND from July 2023 telling us that we are the Normandy 1944 rather than France/Flanders 1916/17...

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/07/a-winnable-war.html

 

 

 

RAND got at least half the equation right: eastern Ukraine is a lot like Normandy. They seem to have completely forgotten that in Normandy the Allies had total air supremacy with an outstanding artillery advantage. Imagine, the words supremacy/superiority don't exist in the vocabulary of an article detailing such a battlefield. A quick reference to one event entailing two days of aerial bombing and that's it. Very credible, yeah. Leave it to a think tank to prescribe something without including the fine print 

 

I think the situations are in fact reversed -- in that you'd need to think of Ukraine in the Germans '44 role. The Germans did inflict casualties by ebbing-and-flowing backward, leaning upon the geographic setting to pitch easy ambushes and hit-and-run tactics before completely throwing away all available reserves into a crazy offensive--wait a second.

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, cyrano01 said:

Hell, at least we were in 'good' (for certain values of good) copmany in thinking that the Russian defensive density was breakable. here's RAND from July 2023 telling us that we are the Normandy 1944 rather than France/Flanders 1916/17...

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/07/a-winnable-war.html

 

 

Another paper on the subject.  Punchline is that we are way off historical norms for a high intensity conventional conflict:

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/January-February-2022/Liddell-Hart-Space-1960/

At 300 per km, it really looks like a Bn is covering what a division used to in WW2 and what I suspect a Bde was supposed to in the Cold War.

[The_Capt]

26 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Dude does love the sound of his own voice.  Goes on & on & on saying something-ish, I guess.  (not you, fireship4 the other guy).  but hey, he knew what was going to happen so clearly enjoys the gift of prophesy and feels compelled to share his great gifts of knowledge, both past & future, with us.

I am a military expert.  I have never even posted all my bonafides because Steve is right, it should not matter.  And I have no idea how this thing is going to go.  In fact the longer this war goes on the more questions I have.  Almost every credible military analyst I have read is in the same boat…just trying to figure it out.

So anyone who says “it is absolutely this!”  They have no idea what they are talking about.  Or they have some sort of agenda.  Or both.  A lot of what this guys says echoes Macgregor, who has been discredited by most in the profession.  
 

I mean, ok we got it:  Ukraine is going to lose and you told us so.  Russia ain’t so bad and we should give em a chance.  I am sure your guy will solve it all in a weekend, just like he did last time.  Whatever.  Now explain to me how mass doesn’t work.  AirPower doesn’t work above 2000 feet.  Heavy doesn’t work.  Combined arms doesn’t seem to work.  Troop densities are just nuts.  How do we do offence anymore.  (Actually don’t even try…I am not listening anyway).  Of course the answer is: “surrender immediately” and then the guy can say “I told you so” all over again.

Edited December 18, 2023 by The_Capt