How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, acrashb said:

That's movie-armourer level silliness, if accurate.  Most RDS' don't work backwards, as they are designed to not have a visible signature from the muzzle end.  

If this wasn't faked to razz the Russians, my theory is it was a vehicle crew member's rifle that he was so unlikely to use he never really familiarized himself with it.

Steve

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Oh, but that definitely doesn't apply to Russia.  Not even close.

This means Russia's WIA situation is probably akin to WW2, if not worse.  That means a lot of guys in the light and medium term wounded category get bumped to the next worst condition due to infection, inattentive care, and/or unavailable care.

And, crucially, Ukraine CAN offer medical aid to wounded, desperate Russian soldiers. If the Bucha encirclement is real, then offering safe surrender, medical aid, food is absolutely the best way to reduce it.

But FIRST let them rot on the vine for a few days, under heavy arty fire. with constant push-messaging of safety, food, etc.

Make them appreciate what surrender will bring.

Oh and take out their commanders (to enable surrender), or suggest 1 x tied up officer gets 10 x soldiers some medical care & food. Sever any loyalty to that command/commanded relationship.

 

[DesertFox]

Kalibr cruise missiles starting in or near Sevastopol?

 

 

[The Steppenwulf]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Steve has the excuse that the Russian's blew up his release schedule.

Wot... BF have a release schedule? 

Sorry cheap shot, just couldn't resist!

[Lethaface]

24 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

At the time, no-one knew if Russia was going to invade, and many people thought the force build up was a bluff / negotiating tactic.

The danger in that scenario is that if Putin thinks that there is a risk of NATO forces being prepared to fight alongside Ukraine, then there is no way he can win the war. Which means that his window of opportunity for a successful invasion of Ukraine only lasts until NATO forces are in sufficiently in place (even if only in Poland rather than Ukraine itself). This means that Russia has to invade now before the window of opportunity closes.

So if NATO is prepared to defend Ukraine, then saying "we will come to Ukraine's aid with combat troops" will possibly trigger an invasion before NATO is in a position to be able to actually do what they said, and then find themselves with a fait accomplis with Ukraine occupied by Russia and no longer fighting.

Of course now we know that Russia was going to invade anyway. But without that hindsight, it might have been a reasonable attempt to try to avoid triggering a Russian invasion that otherwise might not have happened.

But also with the benefit of hindsight, it turns out that Russia's window of opportunity closed several years ago.

In Dutch we have the great saying 'van achteren kijk je de koe in zijn kont', which literally means 'from behind you can see inside the cows arse'. 

But I remember thinking that and looked it up, 9 December 2021: "What happened to USA 'keeping all options on the table'? Not sure what is gained by saying you won't do something. Although I don't really see Russia invading, Ukraine has had plenty of time to prepare for various scenario's. Also occupying large parts of Ukraine without popular support doesn't seem like a very wise thing to do when a certain power clique likes to stay in power. Let alone the sanctions.
Anyway I guess we'll see

So yeah I didn't expect what was coming that's for sure lol

I can follow the logic you describe, but would personally have chosen different. Anyway I'm not calling any shots whatsoever in that regard so there's that. 

And indeed the good bit is that we can even think of lessons learned going forward because Ukraine seems to be effectively dealing with the situation (defense against war of aggression).

Edited March 22, 2022 by Lethaface

[Machor]

Latest expert opinion on when Russia will start nuking:

"UNDERSTANDING PUTIN’S NUCLEAR DECISION-MAKING"

https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/understanding-putins-nuclear-decision-making/

TL;DR: Not yet, but it's on the table.

Two parts that I found interesting:

"A first key point regarding Putin’s nuclear decision-making is that he does not have a single nuclear button that he could push in splendid isolation. Instead, there are three nuclear briefcases in Russia: one with the president, one with the defense minister, and one with the general staff chief. Most reporting indicates that at least two out of those three suitcases are needed for issuing an order to launch nuclear weapons. That means that, in contrast to the United States, two physical suitcases that are controlled by two different people are required to use nuclear weapons. One of those two would have to be the president, as according to Russian declaratory policy regarding the decision to use nuclear weapons . The general staff would also need to accept the order as valid before it went out into the military unit controlling the nuclear weapons."

"Russian deterrence and escalation management concepts entail that using non-nuclear deterrent forces could serve as a warning to the adversary of a move toward the nuclear threshold. Increased use of dual-capable systems is one indicator to look for in this regard. Russia has now used its novel dual-capable air-launched ballistic missile, the Kinzhal, and pundits are debating whether this should be read as such a signal or not."

[dan/california]

12 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

And, crucially, Ukraine CAN offer medical aid to wounded, desperate Russian soldiers. If the Bucha encirclement is real, then offering safe surrender, medical aid, food is absolutely the best way to reduce it.

But FIRST let them rot on the vine for a few days, under heavy arty fire. with constant push-messaging of safety, food, etc.

Make them appreciate what surrender will bring.

Oh and take out their commanders (to enable surrender), or suggest 1 x tied up officer gets 10 x soldiers some medical care & food. Sever any loyalty to that command/commanded relationship.

 

Senior officers get you dropped in Warsaw with $10000, and fake papers. 

[DesertFox]

Some comparision to 10 Years Afghanistan

 

 

[panzermartin]

It's like WW2 again and the russian losses ratio are starting to look like those against Werhmacht, even in later stages of the war.... I think another thing that might have played a role in effectiveness of Ukraine, is that most officers have been trained under the Soviet doctrine at least until 2015, so they know exactly how the Russians are  planning an offensive,the backup plans etc etc. And the russian army is playing by the book it seems over and over again. Combined with new tactics implemented by the West it's catastrophic. 

[The Steppenwulf]

3 hours ago, DesertFox said:

Nice one...

 

 

It's easy this: UKR ask the Poles what price (x) they want for their MiG 29s; UKR sell the Russian command centre to the US for x amount; UKR purchase air assets from Poland for x.   

Everyone gets what they want .. and Russians get what's coming to them!

Edited March 22, 2022 by The Steppenwulf

[BFCElvis]

18 minutes ago, The Steppenwulf said:

Wot... BF have a release schedule? 

Sorry cheap shot, just couldn't resist!

He's referring to our Steam release schedule for games that already exist.

[BeondTheGrave]

To throw some cold water on some of the posts going around here:

 

2 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

I can follow the logic you describe, but would personally have chosen different. Anyway I'm not calling any shots whatsoever in that regard so there's that. 

Regarding this conversation, I think @Lethaface is right about the announcement taking the wind out of the West's sails, so to speak. But I think its also worth it to keep in mind the importance of maintaining public support for all this. West, and especially Europe/Germany, is really going out on a political limb with all this. Pushing policy in ways that was unthinkable 3mos ago. These policies are, of course, very popular currently (a popularity itself conditioned by the promise re boots) but intervention remains unpopular. Even recent polling  bears out the split between gear+sanctions and boots:

Quote

Just 17% of Americans say the US should do whatever it can to help Ukraine, even if it means risking a direct war between the US and Russia, according to the Quinnipiac poll, with three-quarters (75%) saying the US should do whatever it can to help Ukraine without risking direct war. Similarly, 62% in the Pew survey oppose taking military actions that would risk a nuclear conflict with Russia.

Getting in front of the WWIII narrative was, IMO, key in stabilizing western opinion in regards to responding to Russian aggression. It shut down, somewhat, the possibility of kinetic escalation and the threat thereof at the top end. But the overwhelming support for Ukraine has almost certainly opened up more possibilities at the mid- and low-end of escalation and response. The US has already spent, what, $1.5b by itself on the war? And as others have pointed out, the US can always go back on their policy if Russia escalates to WMDs. Even if this were to happen, domestically NATO countries could accurately portray themselves as 'reluctant warriors' who tried as hard as was reasonable to stay out. And of course it would have the benefit of being true.

2003 hangs as a sword of Damocles (or of Baghdad?) over the heads of western leaders. 

[Kinophile]

4 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

 

The trouble with that is that Putin identifies himself as Russia, so an existential threat to his Regime is a threat to Russia...

[DesertFox]

Just now, Kinophile said:

The trouble with that is that Putin identifies himself as Russia, so an existential threat to his Regime is a threat to Russia...

Correct. And losing this "special military operation" in ukraine is an existential threat. Anyways I wouldn´t believe one single word coming from that lunatic.

[billbindc]

9 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

The trouble with that is that Putin identifies himself as Russia, so an existential threat to his Regime is a threat to Russia...

Shoigu and/or the Gerasimov would have to agree (they need 2 of 3 'suitcases') and then are there points at which the order could be refused. I'm wouldn't put too much stock in the ranters on Russia state tv. Putin may have premises we don't share but he's also not shown any inclination to die in a nuclear holocaust either.

Edited March 22, 2022 by billbindc

[panzermartin]

Losing Ukraine is an existental threat to Russia in way, from a strategic perspective. And what about devastating sanctions that will starve its people and destabilize the state. 

[Battlefront.com]

16 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

Regarding this conversation, I think @Lethaface is right about the announcement taking the wind out of the West's sails, so to speak. But I think its also worth it to keep in mind the importance of maintaining public support for all this

There's an old concept... set the stage for what you want in a way that allows the other guy to think he came up with the idea.

Politician and military leaders - "we will not get into a shooting war with Russia"

Citizen - "good, they're listening to what I want and behaving accordingly.  Now we can focus on what to do instead of arguing about what not to do"

 

Then something happens, like a chemical weapons attack on a civilian convoy or a tac nuke:

 

Citizen - "I know you said we'd not get into a shooting war with Russia, but I've changed my mind.  Light 'em up!"

Politician and military leaders - "we are here to do your bidding.  Let it be so"

 

When the population is really not behind something, it isn't practical to change their minds until they decide there's a need for change.  Ignoring that dynamic in a democracy is unhealthy.

Steve

[akd]

3 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

And what about devastating sanctions that will starve its people and destabilize the state. 

A nuke would solve that?

[womble]

4 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Losing Ukraine is an existental threat to Russia in way, from a strategic perspective. And what about devastating sanctions that will starve its people and destabilize the state. 

They "lost" Ukraine when they invaded and annexed in 2014. Chucking nukes around isn't a good way to go about persuading people that you're fit to be readmitted to the community of nations. Quite the opposite, in fact; they'd lose what "friends" remain to them. That last would probably be true in the case of a WMD attack on a population centre, too.

[BeondTheGrave]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There's an old concept... set the stage for what you want in a way that allows the other guy to think he came up with the idea.

Politician and military leaders - "we will not get into a shooting war with Russia"

Citizen - "good, they're listening to what I want and behaving accordingly.  Now we can focus on what to do instead of arguing about what not to do"

 

Then something happens, like a chemical weapons attack on a civilian convoy or a tac nuke:

 

Citizen - "I know you said we'd not get into a shooting war with Russia, but I've changed my mind.  Light 'em up!"

Politician and military leaders - "we are here to do your bidding.  Let it be so"

 

When the population is really not behind something, it isn't practical to change their minds until they decide there's a need for change.  Ignoring that dynamic in a democracy is unhealthy.

Steve

As Laozi famously wrote:

Quote

When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"

 

[dan/california]

https://twitter.com/bradyafr/status/1506360515282489359/photo/1

Pretty sure that river that runs through Makariv is flooding, too due the Ukrainians opening the dam. Sure as heck looks they are surrounded on at least three and half sides.

[dan/california]

What are the odds the Russians have the sense or ability to get out before that pocket closes? Also should NASA be releasing this stuff? It might be the clearest info the Russians have. Triple genius would be too manipulate it right when they come to depend on it.

[The Steppenwulf]

3 hours ago, Baneman said:

Nope, uh uh, sorry.
The lack of adjustment has been on pretty public display since 2016.

Which strengthens your point.

 +1  An Englishman firmly agreeing with a Scot!

[Battlefront.com]

Back to the Russian T-90 production halting rumors.  Well, I for one think it's true.

Even before the war started there was solid reporting that Russian defense industries were having production difficulties due to sanctions and COVID disruptions.  Considering how much disruption there was in the much better resourced Western countries over the past two years, it's really not all that hard to imagine.

Look at what happened to Ford in the US.  They had to shut down and furlough several factories several times simply because they couldn't get a computer chip needed for (IIRC) the ignition system.  This happened in all kinds of factors for all kinds of reasons, but mostly because of the concept of "just in time" inventory management.

Now take that reality and add to it a sudden cessation of exporting all kinds of critical components that the Russians used to import because they lack domestic capacity.  This could be as high tech as a chip needed for the gunnery system, could be as low tech as vulcanized rubber part.  The problem complex assemblies face is that a shortage of ANY ONE OF THESE THINGS has the potential to shut down production until the part (or a substitute) is available.

And who here thinks that Russian tank production is more robust, more nimble, and more prepared for disruption than the company that invented assembly line vehicle production?  Anybody?  No, I thought not

So yeah, I totally buy it that Russian tank production has ground to a halt.  I also buy into the idea that a lot of defense related production has ground to a halt.

Steve

[akd]

Destroyed T-72B3M in Mariupol:

Geolocated it to here (recognize the blue and yellow building in the background as the regional intensive care hospital said to have been seized by Russia):

47.10804° N, 37.50898° E