How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[kimbosbread]

2 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Taking bets -

How many days until Zelensky is doing a photo op with the 82/80th in Sudzha, as the President of Ukraine, balls deep in Ukraine’s newest oblast?

Me - within two weeks.

Yeah within two weeks sounds about right.

[kimbosbread]

I don’t think the US is leaking Ukraine’s plans, but I do think there are requests for moderation… it’s the classic hawks vs downs in Washington trying to micromanage a conflict in place none of them have ever been or know anything about. Same story over the many decades.

EDIT: The question for the doves is “Was it worth it to be dovish on Russia in return for the end of non-proliferation because nobody trusts the US to have their back anymore?”

Edited August 20 by kimbosbread

[Battlefront.com]

I think it's quite probable that Russia has red lines, but they aren't really applicable unless Russia is threatened with external collapse.  For example, NATO invading like a 3rd Reich hoard.  Maybe, just maybe, nukes would come into the picture.  Or it could be made moot by a coup.  No way to know, but I think it's pretty clear that as long as the war continues as a conventional war between Ukraine and Russia, I don't see any significant risk of triggering nukes.

This opinion is coming from someone who has generally favored the West's approach of assuming there are red lines all over the place.

Steve

[billbindc]

29 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

I don’t think the US is leaking Ukraine’s plans, but I do think there are requests for moderation… it’s the classic hawks vs downs in Washington trying to micromanage a conflict in place none of them have ever been or know anything about. Same story over the many decades.

EDIT: The question for the doves is “Was it worth it to be dovish on Russia in return for the end of non-proliferation because nobody trusts the US to have their back anymore?”

Ukraine and Russia is an extremely well known conflict zone in the US foreign policy and military establishment...with direct American engagement stretching back for more than century. It's also a pretty strange thing to call American policy under Biden 'dovish' given the half million or so casualties Russia has suffered directly as a result of the vast support the United States marshalled to match Ukraine's equally immense willingness to fight. What's being managed isn't hawkishness or dovishness...what's being managed it escalation on a number of different levels. 

[LongLeftFlank]

FWIW, I loosely follow global (I mean also non-Western) tankie media on both left and right. I don't go out of my way to listen to their bilge, but there's other issues I do like to follow their on and I just happen to get their pro-Russia stuff while I'm there.

So, their 'alternative facts' on the war are as follows:

1. The nationalists controlling the so-called Ukrainian state are fanatic Russophobes with a Nazi-fascist era ideology (Banderism), actively practising ethnic cleansing of Russians, including from oblasts (e.g. Crimea, Donbas, Luhansk, Kherson, Odesa, Kharkov) where they (allegedly) form demographic majorities.

2. NATO is an alliance of inveterate old imperialist powers, dominated by the Anglo-Americans, whose wasteful, decadent economic systems demand hegemony over global resources, including those of Russia, both to prop themselves up and to keep their rivals (the BRICS) from surpassing them. Ever since the (tragic) collapse of the USSR, they have cynically backed anti-Russian movements in the republics (especially the above-mentioned Ukronazis) as another step in neutering, dismantling and plundering the great Russian state. So 'expansion of NATO' may be understood as serving this larger project.

3. The failed offensive of summer 2023 is the clearest example of Ukraine being a puppet or at least a client, being forced against its own instincts to abandon its Cossack tactics and fight Russia head to head in a Western way, with Western kit. While the severe manpower shortages it faces today are a result of Ukrainian men seeing the game and no longer wanting to be cannon fodder for perfidious Albion, et al.

....Like it or not, this lens has a great deal of traction outside the West, even among some patriotic Ukrainians.

Zelenskyy knows all this; and so he needs to assert boldly that Ukraine is fully in charge of its own strategy and policy, even if it means offending delicate sensibilities in the West now and then.

... Note I am NOT claiming that this is why Ukraine has crossed the border in force. But perhaps it helps explain some of their seemingly (in our own lens) 'unhelpful' public statements.

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

FWIW, I loosely follow global (I mean also non-Western) tankie media on both left and right. I don't go out of my way to listen to their bilge, but there's other issues I do like to follow their on and I just happen to get their pro-Russia stuff while I'm there.

So, their 'alternative facts' on the war are as follows:

1. The nationalists controlling the so-called Ukrainian state are fanatic Russophobes with a Nazi-fascist era ideology (Banderism), actively practising ethnic cleansing of Russians, including from oblasts (e.g. Crimea, Donbas, Luhansk, Kherson, Odesa, Kharkov) where they (allegedly) form demographic majorities.

2. NATO is an alliance of inveterate old imperialist powers, dominated by the Anglo-Americans, whose wasteful, decadent economic systems demand hegemony over global resources, including those of Russia, both to prop themselves up and to keep their rivals (the BRICS) from surpassing them. Ever since the (tragic) collapse of the USSR, they have cynically backed anti-Russian movements in the republics (especially the above-mentioned Ukronazis) as another step in neutering, dismantling and plundering the great Russian state. So 'expansion of NATO' may be understood as serving this larger project.

3. The failed offensive of summer 2023 is the clearest example of Ukraine being a puppet or at least a client, being forced against its own instincts to abandon its Cossack tactics and fight Russia head to head in a Western way, with Western kit. While the severe manpower shortages it faces today are a result of Ukrainian men seeing the game and no longer wanting to be cannon fodder for perfidious Albion, et al.

....Like it or not, this lens has a great deal of traction outside the West, even among some patriotic Ukrainians.

Zelenskyy knows all this; and so he needs to assert boldly that Ukraine is fully in charge of its own strategy and policy, even if it means offending delicate sensibilities in the West now and then.

... Note I am NOT claiming that this is why Ukraine has crossed the border in force. But perhaps it helps explain some of their seemingly (in our own lens) 'unhelpful' public statements.

This is no different than anything I've seen since 2013.  Everything Ukraine did was at the hands of the West, in particular the US.  The intention was to spread Ukraine's Nazi ideology eastward by purging everything Russian from lands that always have been, and always will be, part of Russia.  And why would the West do this?  Because it fears a strong Russia and needs puppet states to do its bidding because it can't compete fairly against BRICS.

The only new thing in what you wrote is that they've singled out the 2023 offensive as being a disaster for the West because now Ukrainians know the truth and they don't want to be cannon fodder any longer.

It's obvious why it is so strong today... it's been the official propaganda drivel since 2013.  10+ years of state sponsored, coordinated BS is hard to overcome.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is no different than anything I've seen since 2013.  Everything Ukraine did was at the hands of the West, in particular the US.  The intention was to spread Ukraine's Nazi ideology eastward by purging everything Russian from lands that always have been, and always will be, part of Russia.  And why would the West do this?  Because it fears a strong Russia and needs puppet states to do its bidding because it can't compete fairly against BRICS.

The only new thing in what you wrote is that they've singled out the 2023 offensive as being a disaster for the West because now Ukrainians know the truth and they don't want to be cannon fodder any longer.

It's obvious why it is so strong today... it's been the official propaganda drivel since 2013.  10+ years of state sponsored, coordinated BS is hard to overcome.

Steve

Sure, and I am not arguing for any of this, just saying that Z is not necessarily in a position to ignore it, handwave it away or shout it down.  His Western sponsors aren't the only audience he must address.

I notice Modi of India will be visiting Poland and Ukraine shortly.

[Eug85]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The fact they did so without US buy in is not a good thing, it is dangerous.

On the other hand, we have an example of an operation fully approved and coordinated with the US. This is last year's offensive in the Zaporizhia region. Complete disregard for the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy and, as a result, a complete failure. It was a purely political maneuver.

Imagine if the Ukrainians had used all these Bradleys and Leopards to draw the attention of the Russians in the Zaporizhia region. While the main blow would have been delivered through the Belgorod region to the rear of the Russian positions in the Kharkov region. I think today we would have a completely different situation. War is not a political game. If you are attacked, you need to fight for real.

Full coordination of operations between Ukraine and the US is impossible, because as many have already noticed, the US and Ukraine are pursuing diametrically opposed goals in this war. Ukraine is seeking to inflict maximum damage on Russia, while the US is seeking to minimize damage to Russia.

Edited August 20 by Eug85

[Carolus]

I think there is a good chance that the whole "without US knowledge or help" is a big cheeky smoke screen.

I might be overly optimistic, but maybe some people in our governmentz actually smarted up and started strategically lying to the public. Good for us! Selective lying is part of a winning strategy in war, especially this hybrid war where half the West seems hellbent on being sycophantic bootlickers for the Moscowite neo-nazi regime.

Especially the sentence that Syrsky organized the Kursk Expeditionary Force without Budanov's knowledge seems like a red flag.

Tbh I half believe the Capt'n was in on all this and his concerns on this forum about how terrible it is that Ukraine is going ahead without the White House are part of a NATO psyop. Maybe he is writing from a basement in Kursk to us right now in between sending coordinates to a Ukrainian HIMARS battery.

In any case, Mashovets does not buy it either.

Quote

General Syrsky "secretly" from the country's top military-political leadership (and from our Western allies) prepared an operation in the Kursk region... Seriously...?

Hundreds and thousands of tons of fuel, ammunition and other items of material and technical support were "unnoticeably" moved to the border areas. Not to mention the process of operational deployment of the entire strike group of troops, which presupposes a rather long, lengthy and thorough PRELIMINARY process of forming the concept of the operation, its plan, implementation in the form of drawing up maps, orders, directives and guidelines, which in itself requires the involvement of a whole bunch of not just individual staff officers, but as a whole - staffs and their structural units. Syrsky himself physically, not to mention "secretly" prepare, but simply plan such an operation - would not have been able to.
The rapid deployment of such a group means not only the movement of hundreds and thousands of military personnel, but also more visible units of weapons and military equipment (WME) with which they are equipped, which are much more difficult to hide than people.
As part of the operational deployment, units and subdivisions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces carried out a whole series of marches, reached specific areas of concentration and deployment (which were obviously specially equipped), deployed PTD, command post (PU), and in general a system of combat and operational control, hospitals, transport control points, shelters for troops and military equipment, carefully camouflaged all of this, etc.
And it was also necessary to organize and carry out an operation to provide operational cover for this entire deployment. Including, in terms of air defense, counterintelligence support, work with the local population, check and establish the operation of radio networks in this area, etc.
Implement elements of the so-called "operational game" with the enemy, in terms of forming and delivering "disinformation" to him in the form of a plausible "legend" (because, obviously, IN REALITY you will NOT be able to hide the process of operational deployment of troops from some Yermak or even Western allies... And in general - from the enemy, because of this - all that remains is to "legend" your own troop movements)
Moreover, all of this had to be implemented in an area where local civilian authorities, law enforcement agencies, the SBU, and, ultimately, a lot of people live, continue to operate... And at the same time, the enemy has a ramified intelligence system in operation, which he has been creating in our border area for years, and a monitoring (intelligence) system in general, including the use of technical means (both tactical and operational levels).
All this requires very careful INTERDEPARTMENTAL coordination of actions... starting with the Ministry of Infrastructure, ending with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Security Service of Ukraine... or the Ministry of Health...
(Yeah, and Ermak... won't recognize...)
And all this... Syrsky did "unnoticed" by Ermak and the Western allies, who have the most powerful military orbital group of spacecraft in the world...?
The one who came up with this nonsense about "concealing the operation's preparation from Yermak and Western allies" and launched it into the information and public sphere is a DOLBOGRAI...

https://t.me/zvizdecmanhustu/2126

 

 

 

Edited August 20 by Carolus

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Sure, and I am not arguing for any of this, just saying that Z is not necessarily in a position to ignore it, handwave it away or shout it down.  His Western sponsors aren't the only audience he must address.

For sure, but my point is this crap has been flowing steadily since 2013 and nobody has figured out a way to counter it yet.  Hell, elected members of the GOP gleefully repeat this stuff as if it's real.  So even Zelensky's Western sponsors have an audience that isn't listening to anything but the drivel coming out of Moscow.

At this point if the tankies had to admit how badly they've been duped there wouldn't be enough crows in the world for them to eat.

After Russia collapses, maybe then we can have some of this cleared up.  But I doubt it will work.  Even if things do start to straighten out, it is likely another Putin will come to power and undo the slight progress that was made.  The re-worshiping of Stalin is Exhibit A.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Eug85 said:

Full coordination of operations between Ukraine and the US is impossible, because as many have already noticed, the US and Ukraine are pursuing diametrically opposed goals in this war. Ukraine is seeking to inflict maximum damage on Russia, while the US is seeking to minimize damage to Russia.

Untrue.  The West is VERY happy to see Russia suffering maximum military damage.  They are also very happy to see Russia's interests outside of Russia (Stans, Africa, Middle East, etc.) get trashed.  The more then better.

Where the West gets less certain about is the destruction of Russian infrastructure or Ukraine using Western weapons to do something that Russia deems too much.  And even then, it's mostly out of fear of redlines being crossed.  Certainly there's plenty of politically powerful powerful groups in the West that are happy to see Russia's gas production go up in smoke.

Ukraine also has a different opinion about the risk of a collapsed Russia than the West does.  Though I suspect the deep thinkers in Ukraine may be more in common with the West than not.  A destabilized Russia is not what I'd want on my boarder.  But it's understandable that Ukraine doesn't have the luxury of thinking long term, because if it doesn't defeat Russia now then long term doesn't matter.

So, goals are far more aligned than you say they are.

Steve

[Letter from Prague]

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

In fact this report is not good news at all.  It means there is daylight in the risk calculus between the US and Ukraine...not good.  The main reason is that the US likely knows what is going on inside Russia better than Ukraine.  This is not the first time the UA has played a bit fast and loose.  The fact they did so without US buy in is not a good thing, it is dangerous.

Of course there is difference in risk calculus.

Ukraine wants to win, they want to gain back their land and most of all liberate their people before Russia genocides them all.

Meanwhile most Western politicians (including US) want Ukraine to slowly lose so they can normalize relations with weakened Russia and go back to making ridiculous money - while doing the bare minimum on Ukraine support, so the electorate doesn't complain too much.

Ukraine doing something like this is always going to be an issue for a common Western politician, not because it is risk y (it is) but because it goes against their goals.

[Beleg85]

5 hours ago, billbindc said:

Let me suggest that perhaps there are some powerful reasons for Ukraine's government to justify earlier failures.  That there are powerful reasons for the US to be able to deny responsibility for actions Ukraine takes. That this is much as or even more a political offensive than a military one with goals both domestic, towards Moscow and internationally.

Usually during unexpected events that catched Russians pants down, there were immediate hotlines to Kremnlin and various politicians (remember Prig coup). We don't read about them now and Washington response to the news about Kursk was relaively calm...I wouldn't be surprised they knew something was brewin up, but conviniently looked at other direction.

On top of that, we all know that there are different opinions in White House as how to conduct this war. Politics, ambitions, characters decide course of action; it's not mathematical equation. They can be wrong and too soft in their risk managment regarding Russia as anybody else.

[Carolus]

FPV drones hitting bridging Russian bridge engineers.

 

 

[Eug85]

And these 20mm Marder fragmentation shells are much more powerful than I previously thought.

[Butschi]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Untrue.  The West is VERY happy to see Russia suffering maximum military damage.  They are also very happy to see Russia's interests outside of Russia (Stans, Africa, Middle East, etc.) get trashed.  The more then better.

I am less than certain about that. Western focus has always been on stability because stability is important for our investments. Russia poses a problem because it meddles in our affairs and destabilizes regions including our direct neighborhood. So, reducing Russian military capabilities to a point where they can no longer do that is fine. What we don't want is Russia being too weak that it either descends into chaos itself or creates a vacuum of power that is filled by other, maybe even less savory parties. I guess you are right with Africa and the Middle East but the Stans? If the alternative is that either China takes over or Taliban/IS?

[The_Capt]

8 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

I think it is extremely unlikely that Russia would go nuclear in response to any of these actions. You need to think a bit bigger if you want an example that might actually trigger a nuclear response. A full scale NATO ground invasion of Russia, in which NATO forces got close to actually physically capturing Moscow, would likely trigger a nuclear response. NATO strikes against Russia's nuclear infrastructure that threatened the existence of their nuclear deterrent would likely trigger a nuclear response. But just conducting airstrikes against Russia (even against Moscow), or gaining control of the Black Sea, would not. 

The notion that the Russians will go nuclear in response to every new aid package, or in response to us allowing the Ukrainians to use Storm Shadow or ATACMS against targets in Russian territory, is frankly absurd. When the Russians make claims to the contrary, they are lying. We can either call Russia's bluff, or we can create a world in which dictators can get away with absolutely anything they want by using nuclear blackmail. That would be an extremely dangerous world to live in, so I think it's pretty vital that we put our foot down right now.

And what possible basis is this assessment built upon?  Dr Strangelove?  War of 1812?

The reality is that we do not know where the real red lines are or are not. In fact Russia is not really a rational player right now so even a repeat action could trigger a response. Failing that, human error and plain old misunderstanding are still a thing.  The central reality is that we do not know what will trigger a response, hence the very cautious escalation to date.  It is easy in the cheap seats to declare all sorts of red lines, but those cheap seats have sat back far from the danger for a generation.  What those cheap seat don’t seem to get is that they no longer are safe.

As to “putting a foot down” is assuming we don’t get it blown off in the process.  

[The_Capt]

8 hours ago, billbindc said:

Color me somewhat skeptical about all of this for a few reasons: 

1. Are we really buying that the US is leaking plans while an often badly penetrated Ukraine is not as much or more? 

2. Do we really think that the targeting and ISR analytics available to the Pentagon didn't pick up preparations? 

Let me suggest that perhaps there are some powerful reasons for Ukraine's government to justify earlier failures.  That there are powerful reasons for the US to be able to deny responsibility for actions Ukraine takes. That this is much as or even more a political offensive than a military one with goals both domestic, towards Moscow and internationally.

This is my best guess as well. The whole thing does feel kinda staged. The US has embeds in country hooked into the UA, not sure how they missed a major UA build up, let alone US ISR. A political spin makes sense.

[The_Capt]

6 hours ago, Eug85 said:

War is not a political game. If you are attacked, you need to fight for real.

Go read Clausewitz and come back...war is always a political game, at least since we invented politics.

As I have said before, the nature of war changed in 1945 - for only the second time in human history.  Total war between great powers was no longer viable.  This is what makes this war so tricky, for the US and the West it is bounded, for Ukraine it is existential.  If too much space comes between how that is managed, it will directly impact support to Ukraine.

War is a political game where you fight for as real as you can get. Welcome to the post-nuclear age. 

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

Of course there is difference in risk calculus.

Ukraine wants to win, they want to gain back their land and most of all liberate their people before Russia genocides them all.

Meanwhile most Western politicians (including US) want Ukraine to slowly lose so they can normalize relations with weakened Russia and go back to making ridiculous money - while doing the bare minimum on Ukraine support, so the electorate doesn't complain too much.

Ukraine doing something like this is always going to be an issue for a common Western politician, not because it is risk y (it is) but because it goes against their goals.

This is "West Bashing Day" nonsense. The US and West want this thing to end without it getting much worse. They want a return to a status quo of a global order (we built) that creates stability.  Russia has broken this status quo - violently.  Russia must be put in a box, but cannot completely fall apart - Russia needs to "lose" but not too much. Ukraine needs to "win" but not too much.

Seriously after all these months the fact that this war is highly nuanced and complex has escaped your attention?

[Ultradave]

9 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

EDIT: The question for the doves is “Was it worth it to be dovish on Russia in return for the end of non-proliferation because nobody trusts the US to have their back anymore?”

Where is this "end of non-proliferation" ?  The only inroad into non-proliferation lately has been Iran, and the fact that they are closer to a nuclear weapon today than, say 12 years ago, is pure stupidity (by the US), and nothing to do with doves and hawks, or anything going on in Ukraine.

Although I can kind of agree with the having their back comment, because due to our withdrawal from the JCPOA, who, including adversaries, is willing to truly trust us to uphold a commitment?

[Bearstronaut]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

At this point if the tankies had to admit how badly they've been duped there wouldn't be enough crows in the world for them to eat.

It's kind of funny that tankies claim to be such ardent anti-Nazis but then spout Nazi-esque Russian Volksgemeinschaft arguments to support Russian imperialism. They never question why there are large ethnic Russian populations in areas outside of Russia proper. 

[acrashb]

Ukraine may, with the help of a river and blown bridges, "encircle" thousands of Russian troops:

Which could lead us to this:

[Beleg85]

34 minutes ago, acrashb said:

Ukraine may, with the help of a river and blown bridges, "encircle" thousands of Russian troops:

Bild's chief analyst for war in Ukraine is Brave Sir Julian, so I wouldn't chill the beer in fridge just yet.

 

River itself isn't particulary wide and from what I read AFU fire controll over it is commanded mostly by FPV drones, so muscovites will most probably manage to evacuate a lot of people in the end. Hopefully they will lose vehicles.

Edited August 20 by Beleg85

[akd]