How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

20 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

When you say use drones offensively, what are you thinking?

Small groups of infantry moving forward, and deploying the drones like they would, say, a mortar, and attacking positions with them as part of a combined infrantry-drone assault (along a larger front)?

 

We bounced around some ideas a few dozen pages back.  So to my thinking the key problem is denying enough space around a minefield to be able to breach it.  The range of enemy ISR, UAS and artillery is making traditional breaching ops impossible.  So the only way I can see doing this without getting back into jetpacks is to use light infantry to try and infiltrate past the mine belts but send them with all sorts of FPVs and supported by larger UAS.  They will need EW and all the C4ISR and layering of indirect fires and deep strike.  They will also likely need C-UAS UAS in order to create a space for breaching and larger forces to push through.  So basically yes, small groups of FPV teams pushing forward and swarming as best they can and as deep as they can with a steady supply of new FPVs delivered by larger UAS, and supported by everything.

Pull all that together along with a deliberate corrosive warfare campaign and basically the RA becomes over-extended by virtue of shaping and infiltration.  Do a breach and then send the troops deep.  Russians hate this and will fall back to re-draw the line.  This is what momentum starts to look like.  If the UA cannot do this then we are back to tactical leg humping and symbolic war porn videos of strategic strikes.  In fact if the UA cannot do the above re: offensive, then they should simply go firm and dig in.  Save all the expensive ammo and bleed Russia white over the next two years when best guesses are the Russians may run out of strategic gas.

Edited April 24 by The_Capt

[LongLeftFlank]

With work, I'm not reading as closely on this any more. X going behind the wall didn't help.

But warm UKR bodies would seem to be the rate limiting step in executing on this plan.

With its current combat cadre worn out from 2 years of high intensity warfare, and in the drone era, probably its last mile support arms as well, UKR just doesn't seem to be up today for training up and manning the '150+ hi-tech Jaeger battalions' that they would need to make this work.

Don't honestly know whether it's 'can't' or 'won't', likely a bit of both.

Demographically possible, perhaps, if they truly mobilised the entire population 18+, including women, at the cost of what's left of their nonwar economy. But I now doubt that any Ukrainian leader, even a military junta, could execute such a strategy.

Simply saying 'you must do it because the alternative are worse' unfortunately doesn't make it happen.

My cursory read right now is the Ukes are exhausted and desperate for something, anything that will make Russia quit, or at least halt in place.

[The_Capt]

17 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

My cursory read right now is the Ukes are exhausted and desperate for something, anything that will make Russia quit, or at least halt in place.

And we are back to breaking the Russian war machine. Which of course will take more fighting men.  There is no magic technology solution here. They can dig in and hope to attrit the RA enough for the Russians to stall and then shoot for some BS empty peace.  Or they can go on the offensive and pay the blood price.

The West can supply a lot but they cannot supply fighting troops or the will to resist.  If Ukraine cannot muster this then no viable alternatives really exist beyond attempts to freeze this thing, which may very well fail due to Ukrainian “exhaustion”.  That is an 800 km frontage, longer than the Western Front in WW1.  They can reduce troop density requirements quite a bit but not to zero, not yet.  There are no free lunches in war.

[dan/california]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And we are back to breaking the Russian war machine. Which of course will take more fighting men.  There is no magic technology solution here. They can dig in and hope to attrit the RA enough for the Russians to stall and then shoot for some BS empty peace.  Or they can go on the offensive and pay the blood price.

The West can supply a lot but they cannot supply fighting troops or the will to resist.  If Ukraine cannot muster this then no viable alternatives really exist beyond attempts to freeze this thing, which may very well fail due to Ukrainian “exhaustion”.  That is an 800 km frontage, longer than the Western Front in WW1.  They can reduce troop density requirements quite a bit but not to zero, not yet.  There are no free lunches in war.

The state of Ukrainian morale has been deeply tied up with the mess in the U.S. Congress. Now that it has been resolved thank bleep, we need to take a deep. breath and see where everything is a couple of weeks. 

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

But warm UKR bodies would seem to be the rate limiting step in executing on this plan.

That is my impression from afar as well.

40 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And we are back to breaking the Russian war machine. Which of course will take more fighting men.  There is no magic technology solution here. They can dig in and hope to attrit the RA enough for the Russians to stall and then shoot for some BS empty peace.  Or they can go on the offensive and pay the blood price.

I think digging in and preserving manpower and destroying Russia’s oil assets and war machine is the best strategy. If Ukraine cannot muster enough manpower to hold the line, assuming the west provides sufficient weaponry, then obviously it’s a moot point.

The real question is can Russia continue like this for more than a year, especially if all refineries and oil depots and substations within 500km of Ukraine are destroyed.

[dan/california]

 

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-24-2024

Russian opposition media outlet Vazhnye Istorii reported that two sources close to the FSB stated that Russian authorities suspect Ivanov of treason, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the FSB to detain Ivanov under the guise of bribery after convincing the FSB that Ivanov had committed treason.[32] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitri Peskov responded to Vazhnye Istorii’s reporting, claiming that he knows nothing about whether Ivanov is charged with treason and calling for an end to speculation about Ivanov’s arrest.[33] Russian sources have yet to specify what Ivanov‘s suspected treason may be connected to. Ukrainian media reported that sources in Ukrainian intelligence stated that the Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) conducted a cyber infiltration of MoD networks in March 2024 and obtained official documents and confidential information about Ivanov, prompting Russian authorities to start an investigation into Ivanov.[34] The GUR sources reportedly noted that the Kremlin was already aware of Ivanov’s corruption but did not elaborate on what the reported documents about Ivanov detailed.[35] ISW has yet to observe evidence confirming the allegations of treason.

 

If he really was an agent for a foreign power someone has lost an important source. Of course it is quite possible he simply stole something in a way someone more important found inconvenient.

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, Ultradave said:

There have been a couple of articles in reputable publications lately stating that the DoD has been staging equipment in anticipation of a yes vote, so that delivery can be started immediately. I guess that's one result of the delay in approval. The DoD had a couple or three months to get organized so they are ready to go. 

Dave

I have no doubt that the US has staged quite a bit of stuff inches and minutes away from being in Ukraine (metaphorically speaking of course!).  But what I was talking about is how long it will take to get to the frontline, which is different than how long it takes to get into Ukraine.  A couple articles I was reading seemed to think it would take weeks or months and what I as point out is that they haven't been paying attention.

Now, as to what the impact of all this good stuff will be... I fully agree that the most likely scenario is returning the front to where it was in 2023 where Russia loses big ticket items on a regular basis and finds it very difficult to get its offensive activities to do more than provide war porn for us in the West.

As I said several pages ago, for the short term the threat to Ukraine is in the Donbas and not the south.  The Kerch bridge has only an indirect relation to the Donbas, therefore it shouldn't be a high priority for Ukraine.  It won't have redundant "all of the above" strike capabilities for some time to come.  So pull HIMARS back and whack stuff in the Donbas as Priority 1 and neuter Crimea's ability to stage air and naval forces as Priority 2.  Kerch is not the key element to focus on for Priority 2.  Far better to sink a couple of ships or take out a bunch of aircraft.

Steve

[FancyCat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

So pull HIMARS back and whack stuff in the Donbas as Priority 1 and neuter Crimea's ability to stage air and naval forces as Priority 2.  Kerch is not the key element to focus on for Priority 2.  Far better to sink a couple of ships or take out a bunch of aircraft.

Steve

As shown in the sinking? of the Sergei Kotov, which was guarding the straits and bridge, threatening Kerch brings out Russian forces to defend it. Not that I’m saying focus on the bridge is essential , but I won’t be surprised if the bridge is the site of further attacks. 

[Carolus]

I really hope this package will bring some relief to the UAF. 

The manpower problem will remain, and obviously equipment can only do so much to alleviate it. 

Also, Europe should not lean back because of this. Good that some announcements were made by the UK, France and others as well.

It seems cruel but understandable that the West is connecting deliveries to certain conditions. Like telling the Russians to stop certain infrastructure bombing and when they do not, Sullivan & Co approved ATACMS to Biden. It is harsh, but it was worth a try. 

But what Ukraine really needs is reliability instead of big packages here and there. And of course, ramp up, ramp up, ramp up the war factories everywhere in the West. It's uncomfortable but too much is at stake, so I will always defend that before economic concerns.

Also, I hope the oil refinery strikes continue, as well as other strikes on military relevant factories in Russia.

And it looks like sanctions on North Korea and China are in the works for helping Russia. Late, but every bit of pressure helps to squeeze the noose slowly tighter.

If the old man can pull this off...

 

Edited April 25 by Carolus

[JonS]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Far better to sink a couple of ships

Is there any /military/ point in sinking more ships?

It looks good, and plays great, but this war isn't going to be won on the Black Sea, and the Russian fleet has already been neutralised. Maintain the threat for sure, but there doesn't seem much point expending any further resources there.

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, FancyCat said:

As shown in the sinking? of the Sergei Kotov, which was guarding the straits and bridge, threatening Kerch brings out Russian forces to defend it. Not that I’m saying focus on the bridge is essential , but I won’t be surprised if the bridge is the site of further attacks. 

The bridge is already threatened.  Ukraine has demonstrated that it wants to take it out and can, at a minimum, cause it a lot of damage.  With the longer range ATACAMS in the mix the threat goes up significantly.  Therefore, in terms of threatening the bridge and drawing away Russian resources from other things... mission already accomplished.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

42 minutes ago, JonS said:

Is there any /military/ point in sinking more ships?

It looks good, and plays great, but this war isn't going to be won on the Black Sea, and the Russian fleet has already been neutralised. Maintain the threat for sure, but there doesn't seem much point expending any further resources there.

There is a strong argument to make that Ukraine needs to continue demonstrating to Russia that there is a very big cost to keeping this war going.  This is the only hope Ukraine has of convincing Russia to stop the war or at least modify some of its behavior.  As unlikely as that might be, one needs to try.  Since Russia only understands force, then cumulatively very high profile, expensive, pride damaging attacks that result in trashed bombers, refineries on fire, and ships at the bottom of the sea have outsized importance.  Definitely more valuable in that sense than smashing anything directly related to frontline activity.

In terms of direct military impact, it depends on which ship/s get sunk or taken out of action.  Russia is still launching cruise missiles from ships, which means there's shore and sea based infrastructure to take out that will have an immediate military impact by having fewer things stressing out air defenses.

Transport ships are a major component of Russia's ability to supply its forces in the south.  While sinking another one or two transport ships won't have a tangible "ah-ha!" impact on Russian ops, any weakening of their supply chain has a military benefit.  Especially if they manage to damage the bridge again, which isn't a bad idea to do just should not be a priority.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

This should come as no surprise to anyone... the pro-Russian/anti-Ukraine/isolationist wing of the GOP is vowing that Ukraine will never get another penny of aid from the US. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4619185-gop-critics-vow-no-more-us-aid-for-ukraine/

Their threats only matter if they control either chamber in Congress and/or the presidency.  As we've seen, controlling the debate is enough to thwart action.  As things are going I don't see a Democrat controlled House and Senate having the 2/3rds vote necessary to override a presidential veto from Trump.

So to echo the sentiment a few posts ago... Europe needs to view this new US aid package as a "one off" and keep going with its efforts to support Ukraine better long term.

Steve

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

This should come as no surprise to anyone... the pro-Russian/anti-Ukraine/isolationist wing of the GOP is vowing that Ukraine will never get another penny of aid from the US. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4619185-gop-critics-vow-no-more-us-aid-for-ukraine/

Their threats only matter if they control either chamber in Congress and/or the presidency.  As we've seen, controlling the debate is enough to thwart action.  As things are going I don't see a Democrat controlled House and Senate having the 2/3rds vote necessary to override a presidential veto from Trump.

So to echo the sentiment a few posts ago... Europe needs to view this new US aid package as a "one off" and keep going with its efforts to support Ukraine better long term.

Steve

It is worse than this re: Trump in White House.  If Trump somehow takes the presidency (from a prison cell...seriously best sitcom ever) he can also order all US military support to pull back.  This will include operational and strategic C4ISR.  This would have a potentially drastic effect on the battlefield as Russia would be on an equal or better C4ISR footing than Ukraine.  At that point the entire framework of this war shifts away from precision and back to mass.  More simply put, tanks may start to work again.

This makes the next moves for Ukraine very high stakes.  Go on defence and make the surge in support try to outlast Russian reserves.  Or bulk up and roll the dice one more time on an operational offensive.  If the offensive succeeds it may create enough momentum that even Trump could not stand in the way.  If it fails, further US Ukrainian support could very well be doomed even if Biden retains the White House.

So, definitely, this war needs an offset strategy.  And to my eyes that is the EU and NATO.

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

This should come as no surprise to anyone... the pro-Russian/anti-Ukraine/isolationist wing of the GOP is vowing that Ukraine will never get another penny of aid from the US. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4619185-gop-critics-vow-no-more-us-aid-for-ukraine/

Their threats only matter if they control either chamber in Congress and/or the presidency.  As we've seen, controlling the debate is enough to thwart action.  As things are going I don't see a Democrat controlled House and Senate having the 2/3rds vote necessary to override a presidential veto from Trump.

So to echo the sentiment a few posts ago... Europe needs to view this new US aid package as a "one off" and keep going with its efforts to support Ukraine better long term.

Steve

 

10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

It is worse than this re: Trump in White House.  If Trump somehow takes the presidency (from a prison cell...seriously best sitcom ever) he can also order all US military support to pull back.  This will include operational and strategic C4ISR.  This would have a potentially drastic effect on the battlefield as Russia would be on an equal or better C4ISR footing than Ukraine.  At that point the entire framework of this war shifts away from precision and back to mass.  More simply put, tanks may start to work again.

This makes the next moves for Ukraine very high stakes.  Go on defence and make the surge in support try to outlast Russian reserves.  Or bulk up and roll the dice one more time on an operational offensive.  If the offensive succeeds it may create enough momentum that even Trump could not stand in the way.  If it fails, further US Ukrainian support could very well be doomed even if Biden retains the White House.

So, definitely, this war needs an offset strategy.  And to my eyes that is the EU and NATO.

To put it plainly, the U.S. election is another front in this war, and perhaps the most important one, certainly the second most important one.

 

[danfrodo]

Much thanks to @The_Capt for the excellent analysis over last few pages.  So yer sayin' there's a chance UKR to actually go on the offensive someday......  

I think recruiting in UKR might go better if there's a clear line to offensive action.  Easier to get folks to sign up for offense & victory than for getting ground down in a trench for weeks at a time doing holding actions.  I'm hoping there's a big chunk of UKR army actually training & preparing for offensive action, I suppose in 2025?  Or if things go right maybe later in 2024.  As TheCapt said (paraphrase), keep shaping and be ready for offensive action when there's an opportunity.  

 

[omae2]

8 hours ago, FancyCat said:

As shown in the sinking? of the Sergei Kotov, which was guarding the straits and bridge, threatening Kerch brings out Russian forces to defend it. Not that I’m saying focus on the bridge is essential , but I won’t be surprised if the bridge is the site of further attacks. 

They should only threaten, not only the bridge but across the western part of russia so the russians pull aa systems off the front into the back yard. Similar how the russians is bombing the cities to force the Ukrainians to defend their cities with their scarce aa systems. Oil refineries are good target cause the russians have to defend them. But the main effort should be attacking the frontline supportive units. Weakening multiple spots, closely following where the gaps develop then faint one attack and develop another.

46 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

It is worse than this re: Trump in White House.  If Trump somehow takes the presidency (from a prison cell...seriously best sitcom ever) he can also order all US military support to pull back.  This will include operational and strategic C4ISR.  This would have a potentially drastic effect on the battlefield as Russia would be on an equal or better C4ISR footing than Ukraine.  At that point the entire framework of this war shifts away from precision and back to mass.  More simply put, tanks may start to work again.

This makes the next moves for Ukraine very high stakes.  Go on defence and make the surge in support try to outlast Russian reserves.  Or bulk up and roll the dice one more time on an operational offensive.  If the offensive succeeds it may create enough momentum that even Trump could not stand in the way.  If it fails, further US Ukrainian support could very well be doomed even if Biden retains the White House.

So, definitely, this war needs an offset strategy.  And to my eyes that is the EU and NATO.

I don't get this whole USA thing. When the European NATO members tried to take control of the aid process they didn't like that. They wanted to be in charge.
Now if Trump get into office he will totally cut Ukraine? It really feels like soap opera. I don't get it why a 500 million population, economic powerhouse relying on an oversea circus to ensure its protection against the russians. We could be a contender to china and the USA yet we still act like some sort of a naive idiot that don't know what to do. Constant bickering about nothing, loud speeches than no actions taken, letting my country to stop the process of giving aid to Ukraine on the EU level. Germany should already work on obtaining nuclear weapons, Poland as well. We should already integrate the member states army into a EU army that has a common language. They should bring back conscription so every young fella can have a basic knowledge about warfare. Not watching the USA if they manage to vote in a senile guy for a second term against an old spoiled brat with narcissistic personality disorder.

[kimbosbread]

12 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This makes the next moves for Ukraine very high stakes.  Go on defence and make the surge in support try to outlast Russian reserves.  Or bulk up and roll the dice one more time on an operational offensive.  If the offensive succeeds it may create enough momentum that even Trump could not stand in the way.  If it fails, further US Ukrainian support could very well be doomed even if Biden retains the White House.

I think defense is less risky, but you bring up a good point that even small but important offensive successive can help.

A Ukrainian offensive will get bogged down at the same defensive line as before, presumably, and then just get hammered with glide bombs unless there is a good story on stopping those.

Seems to me like Krynki is the best bet as it’s at the longest part of the Russian logistics tail. Personally, I would fortify the other areas and goad the Russians into attacking if they get shy, and focus all offensive effort on the bridgehead.

[dan/california]

6 minutes ago, omae2 said:

They should only threaten, not only the bridge but across the western part of russia so the russians pull aa systems off the front into the back yard. Similar how the russians is bombing the cities to force the Ukrainians to defend their cities with their scarce aa systems. Oil refineries are good target cause the russians have to defend them. But the main effort should be attacking the frontline supportive units. Weakening multiple spots, closely following where the gaps develop then faint one attack and develop another.

I don't get this whole USA thing. When the European NATO members tried to take control of the aid process they didn't like that. They wanted to be in charge.
Now if Trump get into office he will totally cut Ukraine? It really feels like soap opera. I don't get it why a 500 million population, economic powerhouse relying on an oversea circus to ensure its protection against the russians. We could be a contender to china and the USA yet we still act like some sort of a naive idiot that don't know what to do. Constant bickering about nothing, loud speeches than no actions taken, letting my country to stop the process of giving aid to Ukraine on the EU level. Germany should already work on obtaining nuclear weapons, Poland as well. We should already integrate the member states army into a EU army that has a common language. They should bring back conscription so every young fella can have a basic knowledge about warfare. Not watching the USA if they manage to vote in a senile guy for a second term against an old spoiled brat with narcissistic personality disorder.

The EU needs to have this little conversation about whether it is a country or a trade confederation. If it decides it is a country it is certainly the third player on the world stage, perhaps the second. If it decides it is a trade confederation, well your going have to worry about US elections forever, Choose wisely...

[poesel]

10 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The EU needs to have this little conversation about whether it is a country or a trade confederation.

This conversation is ongoing for more than 60 years. The trend is 'country' but that is a loooooooong way off and far from a certainty to ever happen.

[The_Capt]

18 minutes ago, omae2 said:

I don't get this whole USA thing. When the European NATO members tried to take control of the aid process they didn't like that. They wanted to be in charge.
Now if Trump get into office he will totally cut Ukraine? It really feels like soap opera. I don't get it why a 500 million population, economic powerhouse relying on an oversea circus to ensure its protection against the russians. We could be a contender to china and the USA yet we still act like some sort of a naive idiot that don't know what to do. Constant bickering about nothing, loud speeches than no actions taken, letting my country to stop the process of giving aid to Ukraine on the EU level. Germany should already work on obtaining nuclear weapons, Poland as well. We should already integrate the member states army into a EU army that has a common language. They should bring back conscription so every young fella can have a basic knowledge about warfare. Not watching the USA if they manage to vote in a senile guy for a second term against an old spoiled brat with narcissistic personality disorder.

Try living next door.  The short answer is “$$$”.  US has most of it and is the safest place on the planet to put your own.  Or at least was.  I have worked in multinational and bilateral situation with the US and if they have a key fault it is “it has to be our idea”.  The US will operate at a net loss to support allies and partners…if it “is our idea”.  Everytime I have ever run into collisions with US counter parts it is when an idea other than their own gains traction.  I have seen US players take someone else’s idea and make it their own, which also works…but it has to be “our idea”.  Love them Yanks but they need to be “managed” from time to time,

What we are really seeing has a few core dimensions but they all center around where the US sees itself both internally and externally.  In some ways this is a referendum on US global primacy and leadership.  In other ways it is a referendum on US internal identity and democracy.   So essentially what is the “deal of the USA”.  This is nowhere near the first time it has happened, not even close.  This is the first time the US has gone through this while being the last super power though.

[Beleg85]

More and more curiosities start to appear in last weeks...

 

[Jiggathebauce]

If trump were to become president again, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we have a thread talking about how hot Europe is going to get - because the MAGA regime will shift to cold war against 'satanic woke europe', withdraw from NATO, and threaten to INVADE Ukraine and help our Russian allies in Christendom

[The_Capt]

31 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Much thanks to @The_Capt for the excellent analysis over last few pages.  So yer sayin' there's a chance UKR to actually go on the offensive someday......  

I think recruiting in UKR might go better if there's a clear line to offensive action.  Easier to get folks to sign up for offense & victory than for getting ground down in a trench for weeks at a time doing holding actions.  I'm hoping there's a big chunk of UKR army actually training & preparing for offensive action, I suppose in 2025?  Or if things go right maybe later in 2024.  As TheCapt said (paraphrase), keep shaping and be ready for offensive action when there's an opportunity.  

 

From the cheap (and safe) seats, I would go for it.  But, and it is a big “But”, they would need to create and sustain operational pre-conditions first.  The problem with defence only, except for largely symbolic high profile strategic strikes, is that Russia gets to say when it is time to “stop”.  There is analysis out there (and posted here) that points to 2026 as Russia’s out-of-gas moment.  But that is a long way out and conditions could change a lot. So pinning the war on attritional hopes is a strategy but it definitely comes with risks.  The same goes for internal dissent eventually toppling the Russian political power structure.  It can happen but hard to build a plan off of, and we have gone on at length on the risks of another Russian Revolution.

Offensive operations make headlines, signal resolve and play into “we love a winner” in the West.  If the UA sit back and dig in there will be huge and cry on “well we sent them all that stuff and they are doing nothing!”  The real trick is to find where the risk-v-gamble line is.  We do not want a final gamble but a forward leaning risk.  But how to do it?  This remains the outstanding question.  How to do it with what they have and can support?  My money is on light, fast and distributed.  Infiltration, isolation and exploitation.  But the UA will have to do this in multiple areas to increase RA lateral friction.  All the while hitting the backfield.

Tricky, tough and absolutely no guarantees.  Of course we can’t see the hi res picture.  If we had that maybe the choice is far more obvious.