How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

Yes, loose nukes are a problem, but remember that both nukes and delivery systems are difficult and extremely expensive to maintain. They would only be a problem for a short time before they stop working, and last thing every warlord of Whatever Oblast wants is the whole world going after them.

 No they really aren’t.  The large intercontinental systems perhaps but the small tactical systems that fit in an artillery shell are very self contained.  Next there is the fact that the people who do know how to maintain and employ them will be caught up in a massive societal collapse.  This raises the risk of them being hired by the highest bidder.  And then there are all of the non-nuclear WMDs.  Russia was sitting on nearly 40k tons of chemical weapons but claimed to have destroyed them back in the 90s.  Of course Russia is a nation of “genocidal, rape, pillage, steal and murder” so we should totally believe that they did as they said.

And that is before we consider the economic and humanitarian effects, let alone climate.  You wanna be mad at Russia, go for it.  You wanna downplay some really significant risks while dancing with a genocidal narrative of your own…well maybe time to take a day or two off from this war (and be grateful you can).

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, G.I. Joe said:

Well, technically Dönitz...

Only on a wargaming forum…

[Holien]

For those that don't check the BBC news an interesting article on how Ukraine is tackling corruption. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq55rpqlp31o

Every country is corrupt in someway, what matters is how the leadership and institutions try and stop it from bleeding the country dry.

Quote

A key milestone came in 2015, when a digital platform called Prozorro helped slash corruption in government procurement, saving Ukraine almost $6 billion (£4.7bn) in public funds in just four years.

Ukraine’s task now is to focus on rooting out corruption in its tax and customs services, as well as improve financial oversight, says Mr Borovyk.

"A lot of money is coming to Ukraine from the West, and of course they are asking whether there is proper control over this money,” he adds.

In addition to sapping Ukraine's meagre resources, corruption has in recent years hampered the flow of foreign aid. Donald Trump cited corruption concerns when challenged about delaying assistance to Ukraine when he was US president.

Corruption has also been a major obstacle to recruiting more men for the war with Russia. Last year President Volodymyr Zelensky sacked all regional officials in charge of military conscription amid bribery concerns. Thousands of Ukrainians also bribed their way out of the country to avoid being sent to the war.

 

Funny what excuses some folk come up with to stop supporting Ukraine.   

Quote

"There aren't any people or positions left in Ukraine that anti-corruption agencies cannot touch," he tells the BBC. "This is probably our main achievement because we couldn't even dream of it a few years ago."

Dmytro Kalmykov, the head of the anti-corruption policy department at the National Agency for Preventing Corruption, a government agency, says graft has been all but exterminated in some of the worst affected areas - for instance, government services such as issuing passports, permits and licences.

He also tells the BBC that significant progress had been made in reforming education and police.

Lot's left to do and really a never ending job.

 

[Holien]

Deleted double post

 

 

Edited May 22 by Holien
Damned tablet posting give me a PC

[Carolus]

Ukrainian "Sea Baby" with, it seems unguided missile launcher. The spread looks huuuuge, but the drone navy keeps evolving, like every other part of drones as a weapon platform.

 

[ZellZeka]

14 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

In the event of collapse, the Illicit nuclear proliferation is a real threat

However, the proliferation of nuclear weapons occurs without the collapse of Russia. Putin handed over nuclear weapons to Lukashenko

[cesmonkey]

Fairly long update on the Kharkiv area by Konstantin Mashovts:

https://t.me/zvizdecmanhustu/1889
 

I will summarize it as Russia continues to commit more forces to offensive up north. At this rate, it will become Russia's main offensive rather than a diversionary offensive because it will run out of forces with which to conduct a main offensive somewhere else.

Here's a quote:
 

Quote

Therefore, the Russian command, one way or another, will have to do one of two things at a certain moment...

- either stop the "auxiliary" offensive and regroup the main part of the forces and resources in the "main" direction.

- or he will turn "auxiliary" into "main", adjusted his initial plans for the campaign and concentrated on the "auxiliary" direction the main reserves that were originally intended for the second direction...

The attempt, forgive me for my French, "will sit with one *** on two chairs", that is, to conduct an offensive SIMULTANEOUSLY in two directions with the main mass of their reserves, in this case it is impossible simply because it risks turning into a six-month assault of some other "Avdeevka" with a sea of corpses.

 

[cesmonkey]

 

[LongLeftFlank]

50 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

 

 

[kimbosbread]

3 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

That makes sense, however mostly in the long run. I am wondering about doing the opposite and increasing supply. Unfortunately, the Biden administration at the time was acting strongly against the oil economy, thus creating the opposite trend to the 1980's trend discussed above: conflict with Middle Eastern oil producers, ban on increasing the domestic production. I am wondering, if adopting a more flexible approach re this could have worked better. Temporarily increasing supply and driving the oil price down below the levels profitable for Russians would make them spend their reserves quicker and then force them to adopt war economy measures which are very damaging to the general economic power and potentially unpopular.

Yeah, we kind of pissed away our chance of increasing supply in bigly fashion. However, destroying Russian refining capabilities means Russia will have to pay out the nose for these products, so same same but different, just a bit late.

That said, with the judicious application of long range weapons against refinieries, substations, locomotives and other useful assets that are hard to replace, have long lead times etc., Russia will just cease to operate properly. If it isn’t clear, I think the way to get to Russian collapse is simply prevent them from functioning as a modern industrial state.

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, FancyCat said:

On what basis would Russia use nuclear weapons on Chechnya if they fail to reconquer it?! Might as well ask why didn't the Soviets just nuke the Baltics or Ukraine, or Kazakhstan. It's a freaking way off mountain republic. In what way does the loss of Chechnya bring regime risk? Would the risk of Chechnya being lost really threaten the regime more than the use of a nuclear weapon causing global condemnation and pariah status? A conclusion too far I think.

The answer is that both the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation believed they were still Top Dogs.  They viewed these things you mentioned as a setback, not as a "forever" event.  But what happens if Russia falls into an uncontrolled and total collapse, more akin to 1917 than 1999?  That's the important difference to keep in mind.  Put another way, would the Red or White Armies in 1917 have used a nuke if they had them?

What we're seeing right now, in fact, is Russia repeating the behavior pattern of Chechnya.

Russia lost the first Chechen War and then spent years plotting how to get what it wanted.  The Second Chechen War was the result of that.  Russia lost what we should think of as the First Ukraine War (2014-2021) from its perspective, so it spent years plotting how to get what it wanted.  The Second Ukraine War was the result of that and (if all goes well) it will lose and lose worse than any other Russian war since WW1.

If Russia remains a viable, intact state then I think there is an almost zero chance they will use a nuke on Ukraine.  Instead, they will likely plot and plan for a Third Ukraine War.  Which is why pushing Russia into a CONTROLLED collapse (i.e. a regime collapse vs. a structural collapse) is really the only possible way we might have a better long term outcome.  Unfortunately, it might also produce something worse than Putinism or it might devolve into an uncontrolled collapse with all the bad stuff that goes with it.

The pisser of it all is Putin is the one making this determination right now, not the West.  The Foreign Policy article (and others) are suggesting that we take it out of that little man's hands.  And the risk of that is what the Foreign Policy article glosses over, which is what we're discussing now and why I pointed it out.

Steve

[FancyCat]

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Put another way, would the Red or White Armies in 1917 have used a nuke if they had them?

How is a nuclear weapon supposed to work? By inflicting terror. How is a nuke supposed to prevent or garner the losing side in the Russian Civil War into staying alive? How is a state that threatens to use nuclear weapons supposed to retain international legitimacy? (They had no notion of the destructive power of nuclear weapons or their taboo, unfair comparison)

By your notion, Putin could just go out and state that the existence of a Ukrainian state is a red line and threaten to nuke it unless he gets what he wants. Except it's clear, none of the world powers want nuclear weapons used. So again, we circle back to the idea of what the world is willing to say is fair vs unfair for Russia to nuke in defense of itself and it's evidently clear worldwide the use of nuclear weapons is not acceptable in any scenario remotely realistic. So no, in no scenario is nuking Chechnya viable for the Russian state vs not nuking it.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, cesmonkey said:

 

Interesting.  Not unexpected either.  We figured at some point China would, if it hasn't already, sent Russia things like munitions.  Russia's need for such aid is so large that China can't push it through a 3rd party without that being noticed.

China should be nervous about doing this.  If they aren't, that's a problem

Steve

[The_MonkeyKing]

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Interesting.  Not unexpected either.  We figured at some point China would, if it hasn't already, sent Russia things like munitions.  Russia's need for such aid is so large that China can't push it through a 3rd party without that being noticed.

China should be nervous about doing this.  If they aren't, that's a problem

Steve

I wonder is China restricting the use of Chinese weapons to only Russian territory.

[The_Capt]

12 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

How is a nuclear weapon supposed to work? By inflicting terror. How is a nuke supposed to prevent or garner the losing side in the Russian Civil War into staying alive? How is a state that threatens to use nuclear weapons supposed to retain international legitimacy? (They had no notion of the destructive power of nuclear weapons or their taboo, unfair comparison)

By your notion, Putin could just go out and state that the existence of a Ukrainian state is a red line and threaten to nuke it unless he gets what he wants. Except it's clear, none of the world powers want nuclear weapons used. So again, we circle back to the idea of what the world is willing to say is fair vs unfair for Russia to nuke in defense of itself and it's evidently clear worldwide the use of nuclear weapons is not acceptable in any scenario remotely realistic. So no, in no scenario is nuking Chechnya viable for the Russian state vs not nuking it.

I think Steve’s point is that so long as there is a functioning Russian state with central control then the risk of nuclear employment is low, or at least along more easily seen red lines.  If Russia dissolves into the world’s first nuclear civil war, all bets are off as rationality quickly goes micro-social.  We could see all sorts of agendas and calculations for use of nuclear weapons spring up.  Not to mention the proliferation risks alone are enough to make sane nations shiver.

I think that nuclear use in a 1917 scenario escalates dramatically.  Much like we know that if AQ had gotten this capability they would have used it.  Further the use very well might not be limited within Russian borders.  I honestly think we may also have a generation gap in thinking.  Some of us grew up in the nuclear warfare era and none of it was a vague notion.  It was a clear and present danger.  For those who did not live under this threat it becomes too easy to simply write it off as “will never happen because it did not”.

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

How is a nuclear weapon supposed to work? By inflicting terror. How is a nuke supposed to prevent or garner the losing side in the Russian Civil War into staying alive? How is a state that threatens to use nuclear weapons supposed to retain international legitimacy? (They had no notion of the destructive power of nuclear weapons or their taboo, unfair comparison)

You're not seeing this the right way.  Since we moved beyond unilateral nuclear capabilities (i.e. the 1950s) there have been three reasons to be concerned about the use of nuclear weapons:

1.  the notion that a nuclear war can be won

2. terrorism, state or non-state

3. desperation (i.e. irrational response)

For the entire Cold War the concept of "mutual assured destruction" was conceived of and pursued to cross out any notion that #1 would work.  Israel in particular has made this clear to Iran.

#2 was, and still is, supposedly controlled by the various non-proliferation treaties. 

#3 is always in the eye of the beholder so it's important to take the beholder into consideration.

3 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

By your notion, Putin could just go out and state that the existence of a Ukrainian state is a red line and threaten to nuke it unless he gets what he wants.

Russia has done exactly that, but the West called their bluff.  Obviously Russia is still a rational state actor, which is why we currently have little to fear from Russia.  This talk we're having isn't about current conditions but potential future conditions that may have Russia ceasing to be a rational state actor or even ceasing to be a state.

3 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Except it's clear, none of the world powers want nuclear weapons used.

True, but terrorists don't tend to care much about what the world powers want.  Failed states are often times akin to terrorists.

3 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 So no, in no scenario is nuking Chechnya viable for the Russian state vs not nuking it.

This is dangerously naive thinking.  While it might be that's the most likely case, it absolutely is NOT the only scenario.

As was pointed out, let's get rid of the Cold War concept of nuking everything into ash.  A single battlefield nuclear shell popped into some well chosen (or even not well chosen) small village that means zero to Russia is the scenario we're talking about.  For the Chechens it would mean having to risk more villages being nuked, for Russia it would be another village they don't care about.

Now, would Russia do this as a rational state actor?  Unlikely.  Which is what they were in the 1990s.  But we're talking about scenarios where that assumption can not be made as safely as any of us would like.

The short of this is that dismissing the threat of the use of nukes is extremely dangerous and naive.  The risk is there because the capability is there and history is not short of bad leaders making very bad decisions.  The thing is, though, we can not be paralyzed into inaction simply because the risk is greater than zero.  To the West's credit, it has been calling Russia's bluff all along, even if cautiously, because they feel they have a handle on the risks.  They (correctly) aren't so sure what will happen if Russia goes into a messy collapse or gets to a certain point of desperation.

Steve

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think Steve’s point is that so long as there is a functioning Russian state with central control then the risk of nuclear employment is low, or at least along more easily seen red lines.  If Russia dissolves into the world’s first nuclear civil war, all bets are off as rationality quickly goes micro-social.  We could see all sorts of agendas and calculations for use of nuclear weapons spring up.  Not to mention the proliferation risks alone are enough to make sane nations shiver.

I think that nuclear use in a 1917 scenario escalates dramatically.  Much like we know that if AQ had gotten this capability they would have used it.  Further the use very well might not be limited within Russian borders.  I honestly think we may also have a generation gap in thinking.  Some of us grew up in the nuclear warfare era and none of it was a vague notion.  It was a clear and present danger.  For those who did not live under this threat it becomes too easy to simply write it off as “will never happen because it did not”.

Exactly.

The Soviet Union did not have a catastrophic uncontrolled collapse.  It was actually one of the most incredible (largely) peaceful transitions of an imperial power in the history of the world.  All of the nastiness happened after.

The breakup of the Soviet Union had Russia retaining operational control of all nuclear weapons.  The states where the nuclear weapons resided were fine with that as an interim solution because, for good reasons, nobody wanted to be responsible for those things.  They're dangerous, don't you know!

What happened was an extremely well negotiated, well planned, and well executed solution to consolidate the weapons into Russian territory.  It was a huge success for everybody, even Ukraine (at the time, perhaps).

What happens if a Russian nuclear base becomes surrounded by a sea of hostiles?  What does the base personnel do with that?  If they don't surrender or buy free passage for themselves and their families, that means an indefinite amount of time being besieged.  Food doesn't last indefinitely, so that's not sustainable. 

The safe bet is that if Russia has an uncontrolled collapse some, probably large, number of nukes will "proliferate" to actors that might not even exist yet.

If that doesn't make our world leaders nervous, then we need new world leaders.  I mean, for other reasons than the ones we already are thinking of!

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, ZellZeka said:

However, the proliferation of nuclear weapons occurs without the collapse of Russia. Putin handed over nuclear weapons to Lukashenko

Belarus does not have nuclear weapons.  There are now nuclear weapons within the territorial boundaries of Belarus, but they are 100% controlled by Russia's MOD and, therefore, Russia. 

The world has never seen a situation where thousands of functional nuclear weapons suddenly become available to anybody with the physical presence to possess them.  In the event of a total and catastrophic Russian collapse Belarus might wind up with operational control of the nukes on its soil without having any nuclear weapons program.  Look at where Russia's weapons are deployed and each site is similarly "up for grabs" in a full collapse scenario.

Just because the world has been fairly neat and tidy doesn't mean it will stay that way.  Planning for the worst possibility is a lot smarter than planning for the best.  Or, even more dangerous, not planning at all.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Well, this is a timely article...

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4677976-russia-begins-exercises-battlefield-nuclear-weapons-pointing-western-threats/

Steve

[sburke]

4 hours ago, Holien said:

Funny what excuses some folk come up with to stop supporting Ukraine.   

Well, he is an expert after all.  

[hcrof]

Drones launching drones, to clear a minefield no less...

Looks like a pretty early prototype but good to see the forum stays one step ahead of reality!

 

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

You're not seeing this the right way.  Since we moved beyond unilateral nuclear capabilities (i.e. the 1950s) there have been three reasons to be concerned about the use of nuclear weapons:

1.  the notion that a nuclear war can be won

2. terrorism, state or non-state

3. desperation (i.e. irrational response)

For the entire Cold War the concept of "mutual assured destruction" was conceived of and pursued to cross out any notion that #1 would work.  Israel in particular has made this clear to Iran.

#2 was, and still is, supposedly controlled by the various non-proliferation treaties. 

#3 is always in the eye of the beholder so it's important to take the beholder into consideration.

Russia has done exactly that, but the West called their bluff.  Obviously Russia is still a rational state actor, which is why we currently have little to fear from Russia.  This talk we're having isn't about current conditions but potential future conditions that may have Russia ceasing to be a rational state actor or even ceasing to be a state.

True, but terrorists don't tend to care much about what the world powers want.  Failed states are often times akin to terrorists.

This is dangerously naive thinking.  While it might be that's the most likely case, it absolutely is NOT the only scenario.

As was pointed out, let's get rid of the Cold War concept of nuking everything into ash.  A single battlefield nuclear shell popped into some well chosen (or even not well chosen) small village that means zero to Russia is the scenario we're talking about.  For the Chechens it would mean having to risk more villages being nuked, for Russia it would be another village they don't care about.

Now, would Russia do this as a rational state actor?  Unlikely.  Which is what they were in the 1990s.  But we're talking about scenarios where that assumption can not be made as safely as any of us would like.

The short of this is that dismissing the threat of the use of nukes is extremely dangerous and naive.  The risk is there because the capability is there and history is not short of bad leaders making very bad decisions.  The thing is, though, we can not be paralyzed into inaction simply because the risk is greater than zero.  To the West's credit, it has been calling Russia's bluff all along, even if cautiously, because they feel they have a handle on the risks.  They (correctly) aren't so sure what will happen if Russia goes into a messy collapse or gets to a certain point of desperation.

Steve

 

 

I would add #4 - Human or machine error.  We almost went over the edge a couple times on this one.  Throw Russia into chaos and the odds of just plain old human screw ups goes up dramatically.  People can say or believe what they want on this all day long.  In the end it is the major factor in western thinking.  If it wasn’t we would have started in on airstrikes and ground troops ages ago.

[Yet]

8 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

Screw it. Russia should collapse into a bloody civil war (and we should take no refugees from there) and if that means Iran gets nukes and nukes Saudis so be it.

(This was written in somewhat of a bad mood.)

What makes you so optimistic that a state party will lay hands on it and use it? No-one gains by that. 

Remember non-state, organised, vision driven extremist groups with nothing to lose? 

 

[Harmon Rabb]

2 hours ago, sburke said:

Well, he is an expert after all.  

Speaking of he who shall not be named.

G7 warms to plan for Trump-proofing Ukraine aid (Financial Times)

I like the idea, not only should it be done we should be emphasizing that we are using frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine's war effort. Good way for the Ukrainians to know that we have their back and a good way to remind Russia that invading Ukraine was the worst geopolitical decision of the 21st century so far.

Seeing billions of frozen Russian assets going to help Ukraine keep destroying Russian military assets on the battlefield should do that.

Edited May 22 by Harmon Rabb

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I would add #4 - Human or machine error.  We almost went over the edge a couple times on this one.  Throw Russia into chaos and the odds of just plain old human screw ups goes up dramatically.  People can say or believe what they want on this all day long.  In the end it is the major factor in western thinking.  If it wasn’t we would have started in on airstrikes and ground troops ages ago.

I forgot about that one because it scares the piss out of me.  Denial is nature's protective cocoon for a reason!

Steve