How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kraft]

On 5/9/2024 at 10:08 AM, Kraft said:

54th Brigade (K-2 drone unit) stops a 3 wave mechanised attack of more than a dozen vehicles.

Video has good english CC translation and explanations

 

 

Part 2.

2 armored columns, including shed-MT-LB, manage to break through and 2 russian Platoons storm the trench. Its censored and also has subtitles:

 

Edited May 15 by Kraft

[Anthony P.]

2 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

But long story short - if you have two sides fighting, and one is willing to do absolutely everything, legal or not, moral or not, monstrous or not, and the other limits itself to what is "proper", then if that "bad guy" side is able to manipulate various systems to its advantage, it will win.

This isn't a "they go low, we go high" scenario.

This is a "Russia is a dictatorship which doesn't respect international laws; we are democracies which do respect and uphold international law" scenario, where the idea is raised that "hey, wouldn't it be cool if we did away with all the democracy and human rights so we can do monstruous, unspeakably evil things against not just Russia, but also against neutral, uninvolved countries and even our own allies?" as part of some strange, unexplained idea that this would somehow bring about the collapse of Russia.

It's like a completely backwards version of being a war hawk. They're keen on discussing notions such as liberalising rules of engagement to produce results because they don't believe that doing so would neccesarily be wrong. This reasoning though sets out with the idea of "let's just be ridiculously evil, because along the way of being to human decency what Bernie Madoff was to the stock market, we might come upon something that will be effective".

[FancyCat]

Underscoring that U.S aid to Ukraine is not a blank check to Ukrainian oligarchs or American MIC.....new article, Blinken on the heels of his visit to Kiyv, is approving 2 billion of "foreign military financing" from the recently approved 61 billion to Ukraine bill, to use to improve its defense industry or purchase armaments worldwide. It's evidently clear that despite the funding being authorized, it's distribution and use is not automatically occurring. Also notable, that it occurs at the whim of the U.S government to secondarily release some funds to Ukraine. So always concern for corruption but definitely a rope the U.S can pull as part of its escalation management. Recall my article on the Czech Republic where it's perhaps 3 billion dollars for 500k of artillery shells. Considering everything else Ukraine needs, always worth pointing out 2 billion isn't a lot. Not for modern peer to peer conflict between the heirs of the Soviet Union.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/blinken-says-us-will-give-ukraine-another-2-billion-military-financing-2024-05-15/

Quote

Blinken said the new funding, in the form of a "first-of-its-kind defence enterprise fund," was coming at a "crucial time" and would help Kyiv get weapons it needs now. It would also "strengthen even more (Ukraine's) capacity to produce what it needs for itself," he said. Kyiv can also use the funding to buy arms from other countries, he added. The $2 billion in foreign military financing (FMF) draws mainly from $61 billion appropriated for Ukraine last month, a U.S. official said. It also includes $400 million of FMF that had not yet been allocated to a specific country and will now be going to Ukraine, the official said.

 

[Centurian52]

4 hours ago, Carolus said:

And they spread that conspiracy and many others so quite successfully. 

And they will continue to do that, because it is intrinsic to their warfare against democracy.

So why not become the monster your enemy paints you as? Within limits.

Russian soldiers are already suiciding with grenades when taken prisoner because they're being told stories about the Ukrainian Gestapo prisons. 

It is entirely necessary to use every reasonable means of warfare and subterfuge in this war that does not unravel the international order too much because your enemy will accuse you anyway and benefit from this accusation anyway.

As long as the West found no defense against this form of warfare, offense is the only defense.

That means sinking Russian, Iranian and North Korean freighters, claiming it must have been an accident or terrorists, and when Russia hands over the evidence of an American torpedo / USV to the UN and threatens to nuke New York (as they are already doing every week) you take a giant sh*t in the middle of the UN assembly and claim it's made up. It doesn't matter. The people who are already on the Axis side will believe what they want anyway.

Russia will always say that it is Ukrainian sabotage or NATO spies. They already do, and plenty of people believe it.

It is time to stop using western power to fump toxic waste in Africa and to do actually heinous **** (to your enemies) because you *can*. Because your enemy is already is doing that and the advantage of keeping the moral high ground becomes meaningless when people get massacred anyway.

Even if this approach didn't backfire, which it almost certainly would, we would be winning by defeating the whole point of winning. I think most people here, myself included, want Ukraine to win for Ukraine's sake. But from the West's perspective the whole point of supporting Ukraine is to uphold international law. You can't uphold international law by breaking international law. We would be "winning" by maximizing the defeat of our own political objectives, giving us an outcome even worse for us than if we had lost.

[FancyCat]

Efforts to find more air defense batteries for Ukraine continue, Ukraine has stated they need 7 more Patriot or similar systems, they currently have 3, Germany has pledged 1, and the U.S is working on sending another. Zelensky has pointed out to effectively defend Kharkiv, 2 Patriot systems are required.  

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-15/us-considers-sending-another-patriot-missile-battery-to-ukraine

Quote

The Biden administration is working to send an additional Patriot air-defense battery to Ukraine, people familiar with the matter said, as the US and its allies scramble to meet the country’s demand for more weapons to repel an intensified Russian assault.

The US is seeking to send a single battery along with radars, according to the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. Ukraine’s European allies are also working on plans to send Kyiv additional air-defense systems from their stocks, the people said.

This week in Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy told Secretary of State Antony Blinken that his country needed two Patriot systems just for Kharkiv, the location of a new Russian offensive.

Earlier this year Kyiv had asked allies to provide at least seven additional air defense systems, with only Germany so far responding to that plea. Romania and Italy are among the EU member states considering sending the capability to Ukraine, some of the people said. Several others are looking to contribute financially to support the effort or with parts and missiles.

 

 

[Letter from Prague]

4 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Even if this approach didn't backfire, which it almost certainly would, we would be winning by defeating the whole point of winning. I think most people here, myself included, want Ukraine to win for Ukraine's sake. But from the West's perspective the whole point of supporting Ukraine is to uphold international law. You can't uphold international law by breaking international law. We would be "winning" by maximizing the defeat of our own political objectives, giving us an outcome even worse for us than if we had lost.

There is no breaking of international law in not telling Ukraine "you can't use Western weapons to attack Russia". There is no breaking of international law in not telling Ukraine "stop attacking refineries". There is no breaking of international law in being asserting in protecting our airspace.

You could see the difference when Iran launched missiles at Israel and US, UK, France and possibly others went to intercept. Is someone intercepting missiles Russia is launching at Ukraine?

[Centurian52]

Just now, Letter from Prague said:

There is no breaking of international law in not telling Ukraine "you can't use Western weapons to attack Russia". There is no breaking of international law in not telling Ukraine "stop attacking refineries". There is no breaking of international law in being asserting in protecting our airspace.

You could see the difference when Iran launched missiles at Israel and US, UK, France and possibly others went to intercept. Is someone intercepting missiles Russia is launching at Ukraine?

I'm completely with you there. Refineries are obviously legitimate military targets, and I am struggling to understand why there is any controversy in Ukraine attacking them. I have never understood our prohibition on Ukraine using western weapons to attack targets inside internationally-recognized Russian territory (we don't care about what Russia thinks is Russian territory). But that isn't what Carolus was suggesting.

[Nastypastie]

Anyone else feeling that the RU info ops are at a fever pitch right now?

On Youtube I'm seeing videos from once relatively benign sources like Balkan Mapping, that have turned decidedly pro Russian in the last year or so. Daily video gets released and its, as expected, music and everything, glorifying the push into Kharkiv. Whats more interesting is that within 30 minutes of release there are hundreds of comments both in Russian and English, speaking like the Russians have already captured Kharkiv city, destroyed the entire Ukrainian army and will be in Berlin in 80 days (not even joking, that was an actual comment).

I've even seen something similar happen with a piece from the Hindustan times, claiming that the Russians were advancing Sumy (when they are clearly not). I mean, not typically my go to for news lol, and it is right wing, but its still a relatively reputable news organization.

So what is actually happening here? Are the Russians just cranking up the algorithms?

[Centurian52]

1 minute ago, Nastypastie said:

Anyone else feeling that the RU info ops are at a fever pitch right now?

ISW was reporting as far back as March that Russia was planning large scale information operations that would continue through May. So I'm not surprised.

[Harmon Rabb]

6 minutes ago, Nastypastie said:

Anyone else feeling that the RU info ops are at a fever pitch right now?

On Youtube I'm seeing videos from once relatively benign sources like Balkan Mapping, that have turned decidedly pro Russian in the last year or so. Daily video gets released and its, as expected, music and everything, glorifying the push into Kharkiv. Whats more interesting is that within 30 minutes of release there are hundreds of comments both in Russian and English, speaking like the Russians have already captured Kharkiv city, destroyed the entire Ukrainian army and will be in Berlin in 80 days (not even joking, that was an actual comment).

I've even seen something similar happen with a piece from the Hindustan times, claiming that the Russians were advancing Sumy (when they are clearly not). I mean, not typically my go to for news lol, and it is right wing, but its still a relatively reputable news organization.

So what is actually happening here? Are the Russians just cranking up the algorithms?

I'll be honest I have not heard of any of those other sources before but I have placed "the Hindustan times" on my ignore list on both YouTube and on the Windows 11 news section over a year ago. They were obviously pro-Russian just going by their headlines.

I really don't want to read Russian propaganda if I can avoid it.

[Eddy]

Striking Russia with US weapons is a decision for Ukraine, says Antony Blinken (msn.com)

Not sure whether this has been posted or not.

Quote

Antony Blinken told a press conference in the Ukrainian capital that while Washington did not encourage Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia with weapons supplied by the US, it believed it was a decision Kyiv should make for itself – in what appeared to be a key shift in American policy.

 

[Letter from Prague]

Yeah, I've noticed this as well. I also saw few previously pretty neutral channels starting with the narrative "now that Ukraine is obviously defeated and Russia will take over soon, let's talk about how Russia is going to attack NATO". If you look carefully, there's always some proof of this being Russian op - I've noticed obsession with warm water ports or claming that "Russian speaking Ukrainians are actually Russians or at least would be happy with Russia taking over".

[Sojourner]

50 minutes ago, Nastypastie said:

Anyone else feeling that the RU info ops are at a fever pitch right now?

There seems to be an uptick in cyber attacks lately as well.

[Letter from Prague]

This is rumint at this point, buuuuut seems there is a connection to our proper topic of discussion.

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Nastypastie said:

Anyone else feeling that the RU info ops are at a fever pitch right now?

On Youtube I'm seeing videos from once relatively benign sources like Balkan Mapping, that have turned decidedly pro Russian in the last year or so. Daily video gets released and its, as expected, music and everything, glorifying the push into Kharkiv. Whats more interesting is that within 30 minutes of release there are hundreds of comments both in Russian and English, speaking like the Russians have already captured Kharkiv city, destroyed the entire Ukrainian army and will be in Berlin in 80 days (not even joking, that was an actual comment).

I've even seen something similar happen with a piece from the Hindustan times, claiming that the Russians were advancing Sumy (when they are clearly not). I mean, not typically my go to for news lol, and it is right wing, but its still a relatively reputable news organization.

So what is actually happening here? Are the Russians just cranking up the algorithms?

Some of it is most certainly coordinated, but some of it is organic because this really is the best news Russia has had in a long time.  The grinding offensive to take Bakhmut and Avdiivka were so tainted by the months of poor performance that when Russians actually took the cities there wasn't much to crow about.  Very different situation with the relatively quick land grab in an entirely new direction (well, new since Russia abandoned it).

Steve

[Carolus]

3 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

where the idea is raised that "hey, wouldn't it be cool if we did away with all the democracy and human rights so we can do monstruous, unspeakably evil things against not just Russia, but also against neutral, uninvolved countries and even our own allies?" as part of some strange, unexplained idea that this would somehow bring about the collapse of Russia.

While you can certainly bring that to the table of discussion if you like, it would be better next time of you to read what was actually written (even if it was written with a bit of comedic exaggeration). It tends to help with discussion when you do that instead of living in your own fantasy world where you want to erect concentration camps.

I think the Captn has summarized the potential of subterfuge and grey area warfare in his post on the previous page quite well, that the risks are great and that, as I also think, no Western government is remotely willing to start taking this global conflict really seriously at the moment. 

Edited May 15 by Carolus

[Carolus]

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

But that isn't what Carolus was suggesting.

Aye. I am worried of the "They go low you stay high" scenario, which will lead to the eventual end of international law.

People seem to miss that international law is not a value by itself, it is a means to an end. Like any law it requires enforcement. At the moment we can see that enforcement is not possible. 

What is the purpose of international law? To reduce, via many island hops, human suffering. 

Once the suffering created by upholding a law becomes bigger than the suffering it prevents, the minority that limits itself to endure that suffering and faces an existential threat has to do a pro and contra analysis.

Sorry, but we are not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. We have hot conventional war in Europe, we have the nation's which care for an orderly world being dangerously undermined, we have a whole series of side conflicts in the developing world where the anti-democratic forces are happily slaughtering their opposition to install strongarm dictator types, and a brewing conflict in the Pacific. 

If we need to break some eggs to make this global omelette, you won't see me demanding the US government to be pulled in front of the ICC, which they openly ignore anyway (and ask yourself why they do - because they see it the same way. Hegemony is never clean, but I am content with the label "least dirty").

Edited May 15 by Carolus

[JonS]

If you abandon your principles whenever it gets a bit hard, you don't have any principles.

[Anthony P.]

1 hour ago, Carolus said:

While you can certainly bring that to the table of discussion if you like, it would be better next time of you to read what was actually written (even if it was written with a bit of comedic exaggeration). It tends to help with discussion when you do that instead of living in your own fantasy world where you want to erect concentration camps.

If I mistook your intent that gravely, keep in mind that so did at least 6 others based on posted reactions. That might say more about what you wrote and how you wrote it than about it being poorly interpreted.

[Centurian52]

7 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Aye. I am worried of the "They go low you stay high" scenario, which will lead to the eventual end of international law.

No. It will not lead to the eventual end of international law. International law might come to an end eventually, but it will not be because we stayed high. If anything, it might come to an end because we went low.

11 minutes ago, Carolus said:

People seem to miss that international law is not a value by itself, it is a means to an end. Like any law it requires enforcement. At the moment we can see that enforcement is not possible. 

What is the purpose of international law? To reduce, via many island hops, human suffering. 

Once the suffering created by upholding a law becomes bigger than the suffering it prevents, the minority that limits itself to ensure that aufdering and faces an existential threat has to do a pro and contra analysis.

Sorry, but we are not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. We have hot conventional war in Europe, we have the nation's which care for an orderly world being dangerously undermined, we have a whole series of side conflicts in the developing world where the anti-democratic forces are happily slaughtering their opposition to install strongarm dictator types, and a brewing conflict in the Pacific. 

If we need to break some eggs to make this global omelette, you won't see me demanding the US government to be pulled in front of the ICC, which they openly ignore anyway (and ask yourself why they do - because they have reached they see it the same way I do).

I think you are missing some very basic fundamentals about this war, the relative strength of modern day Russia and the west, how the modern world works in general, and a few realities of warfare.

1. It isn't about going high or low. Russia is making gains in Ukraine right now because there was a gap in western aid, not because the west is sticking to the high road. Now that fresh aid is on the way Russia's window to make significant gains is going to come to a close, even if they keep going low. It will not reopen unless there is another gap in western aid. It has absolutely nothing to do with going high or low. Russia going low is not giving them an advantage on the battlefield, the gap in western aid is. Us going high is not putting Ukraine at a disadvantage on the battlefield, the gap in western aid is.

2. The west is massively more powerful than Russia. The US GDP in 2022 was ten times the Russian GDP. The combined members of NATO (including the US) have twenty times the Russian GDP. If you add in our Pacific and Asian allies it comes out to thirty times the Russian GDP. Now, as we have been painfully learning over the last two years, overwhelming economic superiority does not instantly or automatically translate to a superiority in military industrial production. But, as I expect Russia to very painfully learn over the next (I'm throwing out a guess here, based largely on the mediocrity principle, that we're right smack dab in the middle of this thing) two years, it does translate to a greater potential to expand military industrial production. And it translates to greater economic endurance. Russia cannot keep up current levels of spending forever. The west can keep up current levels of aid to Ukraine (or even many times the current levels of aid in monetary terms) pretty much forever. So the west absolutely has the capability to enable Ukraine to win. The only factor is western will to continue supporting Ukraine, and to hopefully expand support for Ukraine. Provided that western will to support Ukraine doesn't break, it is impossible for Russia to win even if they go low and we stay high. Going low or high isn't even a factor.

3. Going high isn't just about principle, it's where our strength comes from. I mean that literally, not in the vague feel-good sense in which the power of love somehow enables the heroes of a story to overcome impossible odds. Our strength (both military and economic) is literally derived from our alliances, our credibility, and the rules based international order. The United States has a massive network of alliances. You may notice that China and Russia, both of which are far more willing to go low, come up a little short on allies.

4. Going low doesn't actually work. This may be a bit difficult to grasp, particularly since we've been inundated with pessimists who think they're realists for so many years. But just because something is dirty or unethical doesn't make it effective. As one example, Russian assassinations on British soil were probably a factor in why the British have been so enthusiastic in providing support for Ukraine (the small amount of material they've provided has more to do with a lack of material to provide than with a lack of will to provide it). As another example, I have been reading about increasing use by the Russians of chemical weapons in Ukraine. These are outlawed in warfare under international law, so is about as clear a case of going low as you could imagine. But there are reasons why it was so much easier to outlaw the use of chemical weapons in warfare than it was to outlaw the use of, for example, cluster munitions. Chief among them is that cluster munitions are extremely effective, while chemical weapons aren't particularly effective. It was easy to outlaw chemical weapons because their cruelty is far out of proportion to their battlefield utility. They're better than nothing, but they're difficult to maintain and generally less effective than an equivalent amount of HE would have been. The fact that Russia has resorted to using chemical weapons is a sign of desperation, not a sign that these are actually effective weapons. So far I believe all of the recent Russian advances have been credited to artillery and local air superiority, not to their use of chemical weapons.

[Carolus]

40 minutes ago, JonS said:

If you abandon your principles whenever it gets a bit hard, you don't have any principles.

The British and the French already have troops in Ukraine doing targeting for Stormshadow / SCALP, killing Russians without a declaration of war. 

Your high horse is not just dead, you actually never realised it was an alligator you were riding this whole time. You are not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy.

The "letter of the law" was always the principle of fools and children. The intent behind a law is where the true value of principle lies. If you abandon the intent for the letter, you never had principles to begin with.

Edited May 15 by Carolus

[Carolus]

31 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

If I mistook your intent that gravely, keep in mind that so did at least 6 others based on posted reactions. That might say more about what you wrote and how you wrote it than about it being poorly interpreted.

I wrote about subterfuge, rescuing willing nations from Russian influence and sabotaging the freight lanes of our enemies the same they they are doing while using the same implausible deniability.

You are the only one who spoke about erecting concentration camps and destroying democracy in reaction.

No, you really were... "unique".

Let's not dwell on it, though, and move on to better,  more interesting topics. I understand how embarrassing a gaffe like yours can be and we don't have to draw this out for your sake.

Edited May 15 by Carolus

[JonS]

4 minutes ago, Carolus said:

No, you really were... "unique".

He really ... isn't

[JonS]

9 minutes ago, Carolus said:

The British and the French already have troops in Ukraine doing targeting for Stormshadow / SCALP, killing Russians without a declaration of war. 

Your high horse is not just dead, you actually never realised it was an alligator you were riding this whole time. You are not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy.

 

What are you even talking about?

[Carolus]

2 minutes ago, JonS said:

What are you even talking about?

This is better discussed via PMs.