How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[kimbosbread]

2 hours ago, Ultradave said:

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.

Ukraine gave up nukes (for many good reasons, not just including maintenance) at the behest of the US. Now they’re engaged in an existential struggle with a genocidal, irrational nuclear armed state and aren’t supposed to cross red lines (or do it slowly).

Presumably this has not been lost on our dear East Asian friends, who expect an even bigger mess to happen soon.

[acrashb]

12 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

 I wouldn't chill the beer in fridge just yet.

Hence my use of air-quotes on "encircled".  

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

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.

As I pointed out a few pages ago... the Dnepr is about a tough a water obstacle as there is.  Russia was able to withdraw a 15-20k after a couple of months of successfully sustaining them.  What Ukraine was able to do was obligate them to retreat.  That's definitely in the cards here, though I expect they will not do that until things are much, much more difficult for them than they are now.

Steve

[Eug85]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

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. 

But why Clausewitz? Is there really no one closer to our era? I meant that the situation always ends in failure when politicians interfere with operations. In addition to the Zaporizhzhya offensive, we can recall the Kursk offensive of 1943 and the role that Hitler played in it. These two operations are quite similar in terms of their political goals - to show our allies that we are worth betting on.

[Eug85]

6 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Ukraine gave up nukes (for many good reasons, not just including maintenance) at the behest of the US. Now they’re engaged in an existential struggle with a genocidal, irrational nuclear armed state and aren’t supposed to cross red lines (or do it slowly).

Presumably this has not been lost on our dear East Asian friends, who expect an even bigger mess to happen soon.

https://thediplomat.com/2024/05/the-great-debate-over-south-korea-developing-nuclear-weapons-is-back/

It looks like South Korea has drawn conclusions

 

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, Eug85 said:

But why Clausewitz? Is there really no one closer to our era? I meant that the situation always ends in failure when politicians interfere with operations. In addition to the Zaporizhzhya offensive, we can recall the Kursk offensive of 1943 and the role that Hitler played in it. These two operations are quite similar in terms of their political goals - to show our allies that we are worth betting on.

What political goals did Hitler have in 1943?  None.  Obviously Ukraine's position is more complicated, but it's still a distortion to say that the summer 2023 offensive was just political.

Both operations were military in nature and were designed to produce military results.  In the case of Kursk it was to regain strategic initiative by destroying a large concentration of Soviet forces.  In Zaporizhzhya's case it was to regain strategic initiative by retaking large amounts of occupied lands.

The problem with the 2023 offensive was nobody knew, for sure, that it wouldn't work.  Hindsight shows why it didn't work and that's all well and fine for figuring out what to do in the future, but it doesn't rewrite history.  The 2023 offensive was a logical military move which didn't ultimately pan out as intended.  Military actions not working out as intended is a common feature in warfare even when no politics are at work.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, Butschi said:

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?

Yes, and we've talked about this many, many times (including in the past few pages) that the West does *NOT* want Russia to collapse.  Ukraine should be even less interested in that.  However, that wasn't the point being discussed.  The point was made that the West wants Russia's military harmed as little as possible.  That's BS.  What is not BS is the West is cautious about letting Ukraine destroy Russia as a nation state and, more specifically, by using its weapons to do so.  That's a legitimate concern.

Steve

[keas66]

I am kind of doubtful that your analysis in this case is correct . Hitler most definitely had a Political Agenda - for the Nazi Regime to Survive for starters .  And the Offensive in 2023 most definitely had a Political agenda behind it as well - to convince the backers of the Ukranian "State" that they were worth the investment in terms of Military aid and support .

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, keas66 said:

I am kind of doubtful that your analysis in this case is correct . Hitler most definitely had a Political Agenda - for the Nazi Regime to Survive for starters .  And the Offensive in 2023 most definitely had a Political agenda behind it as well - to convince the backers of the Ukranian "State" that they were worth the investment in terms of Military aid and support .

Reread what was written.

" These two operations are quite similar in terms of their political goals - to show our allies that we are worth betting on. "

The notion that Hitler pushed for the Kursk offensive to impress it's allies is nonsense.  The operation was a military operation from start to finish.  Hitler's interference did not change it's purpose, but it absolutely had an impact on its outcome.  That's because he was a micromanager without the brains or experience to do so successfully.

This is very different than what Ukraine faced in 2023 where there absolutely was a very important political aspect.  However, the offensive was not purely political.  It was a sound military move to secure logical military objectives.  It didn't work out very well, but blaming it all on politics is very wrong headed.

Steve

[Eug85]

26 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, and we've talked about this many, many times (including in the past few pages) that the West does *NOT* want Russia to collapse.  Ukraine should be even less interested in that.  However, that wasn't the point being discussed.  The point was made that the West wants Russia's military harmed as little as possible.  That's BS.  What is not BS is the West is cautious about letting Ukraine destroy Russia as a nation state and, more specifically, by using its weapons to do so.  That's a legitimate concern.

Steve

To be honest, in my post I meant that Ukraine was causing harm to the Russian state as a whole, not the army in particular, and the US’s desire to minimize such damage.

 

34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

What political goals did Hitler have in 1943?  None.  Obviously Ukraine's position is more complicated, but it's still a distortion to say that the summer 2023 offensive was just political.

This statement clearly contradicts Clausewitz's theory.

Behind every strategic operation there are political goals. Hitler hoped that with a victory at Kursk he would be able to restore Germany's authority, which had been shaken after Stalingrad. After all, Italy at that time began to think that they were fighting for the wrong side.

[Eug85]

31 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The notion that Hitler pushed for the Kursk offensive to impress it's allies is nonsense.  The operation was a military operation from start to finish.  Hitler's interference did not change it's purpose, but it absolutely had an impact on its outcome.  That's because he was a micromanager without the brains or experience to do so successfully.

Quite the opposite. Kluge and Manstein were in charge of the operational leadership of the troops, the latter having created the plan for the entire operation in response to Hitler's demands. Manstein coped with his duties perfectly, Hitler did not interfere with the course of the battle at all. Manstein immediately realized that the initial objective would not be achieved, and instead of advancing on Oboyan, he concentrated on a secondary objective - the destruction of the Soviet reserves that they had concentrated for Kharkov. He succeeded in this perfectly. The 5th Guards Tank Army and the 5th Guards Combined Arms Army suffered catastrophic losses after the battle near Prokhorovka and lost the ability to advance.

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Eug85 said:

To be honest, in my post I meant that Ukraine was causing harm to the Russian state as a whole, not the army in particular, and the US’s desire to minimize such damage

I was more responding to Letter in Prague's comment about Western motivation.  It is a fact that the West, in particular the US, is cautious about Ukraine's destruction of Russia as a nation state.  Yet not so cautious that it is threatening withdrawing support if Ukraine continues its activities within Russia.  Which it could do if it wanted to.  For example, "if you continue blowing up Russian oil infrastructure we'll stop sending artillery shells".

4 minutes ago, Eug85 said:

This statement clearly contradicts Clausewitz's theory.

Behind every strategic operation there are political goals. Hitler hoped that with a victory at Kursk he would be able to restore Germany's authority, which had been shaken after Stalingrad. After all, Italy at that time began to think that they were fighting for the wrong side.

That's muddying the waters.  You said that the two situations were primarily intended to impress allies.  That is not true, though of course nothing is one dimensional. 

The purpose of the Kursk offensive was not designed to impress the Italians or the Japanese, nor Romania, Hungary, or any of the other minor allies.  It was designed to regain strategic initiative on the Eastern Front. 

The purpose of a 2023 summer offensive for Ukraine was more complicated because, unlike Nazi Germany, it is totally dependent upon the support of its allies.  It was important for Ukraine to demonstrate that it was a good investment and taking back more land was the logical way to prove it.  However, there were also important domestic reasons for proving that Ukraine could retake its land, so it wasn't just to please foreign donors.

The other big difference between Kursk 1943 and Zaporizhzhya 2023 is that the German general staff did not have confidence that it was a good idea.  And the more Hitler interfered, the more they worried.  I have not seen evidence of a similar situation with Zaporizhzhya.  Hindsight is not relevant.

Steve

[Butschi]

31 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The point was made that the West wants Russia's military harmed as little as possible.  That's BS.

True and agreed. My point is that this doesn't make the opposite

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

true, automatically, either. In a country like Russia, you cannot separate stability from military power. The former is in large parts ensured by the latter.

Shrinking the Russian military to a size where it doesn't pose a danger to us and the international rule based order, sure. But if we agree that it is not in the West's interest to destabilize Russia to a point where it falls apart and my assertion is correct that Russia's stability is based at least in parts on its military power, maximum military damage - if by "maximum" you mean "zero, if possible" is not in the West's interest, either, right?

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, Eug85 said:

Quite the opposite. Kluge and Manstein were in charge of the operational leadership of the troops, the latter having created the plan for the entire operation in response to Hitler's demands. Manstein coped with his duties perfectly, Hitler did not interfere with the course of the battle at all. Manstein immediately realized that the initial objective would not be achieved, and instead of advancing on Oboyan, he concentrated on a secondary objective - the destruction of the Soviet reserves that they had concentrated for Kharkov. He succeeded in this perfectly. The 5th Guards Tank Army and the 5th Guards Combined Arms Army suffered catastrophic losses after the battle near Prokhorovka and lost the ability to advance.

The operation was repeatedly delayed because of Hitler.  And IIRC Hitler forbid cancelling when the Soviets went on the counter attack.

This is now going well off topic.  It needs to end.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Butschi said:

True and agreed. My point is that this doesn't make the opposite

true, automatically, either. In a country like Russia, you cannot separate stability from military power. The former is in large parts ensured by the latter.

Shrinking the Russian military to a size where it doesn't pose a danger to us and the international rule based order, sure. But if we agree that it is not in the West's interest to destabilize Russia to a point where it falls apart and my assertion is correct that Russia's stability is based at least in parts on its military power, maximum military damage - if by "maximum" you mean "zero, if possible" is not in the West's interest, either, right?

Correct.  By "maximum" I mean right up to the point where further destruction starts to tip things towards collapse.  The charge was made that the West doesn't want the destruction at all.  Which is utter nonsense in both practice and theory.

Steve

[sross112]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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

Just looking for clarification.

What would be the difference between a stable and non-stable Russia? The non-stable Russia might attack its smaller neighbors without provocation? Might interfere with and actively conduct sabotage and espionage against states and persons not aligned with its interests? Might be delusional? Might be very difficult to deal with politically? Might actively work to undermine the west and anyone else that doesn't line up neatly to lick its boots? 

The only reason I can see that the rest of the world wouldn't welcome a complete collapse and fracture of Russia is the nukes floating around. A de-stabilized Russia though? What does that even mean?

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Eug85 said:

But why Clausewitz? Is there really no one closer to our era? I meant that the situation always ends in failure when politicians interfere with operations. In addition to the Zaporizhzhya offensive, we can recall the Kursk offensive of 1943 and the role that Hitler played in it. These two operations are quite similar in terms of their political goals - to show our allies that we are worth betting on.

Because you live in a Clausewitzian theoretical era...at least as far as land warfare is concerned.  All the stuff you read on Mission Command, Manoeuvre and Mass/Centers of gravity/Nature of Warfare etc...are all based on his stuff - which he actually "borrowed" from others before him.

John Arquilla, may be as close to a modern theorist we have come.  Plenty of stuff on the margins - COIN, CT and cyber.  But in the main we are left with Clausewitz..enjoy.

A military operation without political oversight is call a coup. If you want no political interference at all in the prosecution of a war, you are really talking about a military junta.  And frankly they have never worked out well.

[Eug85]

These events took place back in May of this year. It's incredible that the guy managed to make a video of his sabotage

[sburke]

2 minutes ago, Eug85 said:

These events took place back in May of this year. It's incredible that the guy managed to make a video of his sabotage

fragging with a FPV, that's a first! 

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, sross112 said:

A de-stabilized Russia though? What does that even mean?

A society where a centralized government with a monopoly on military power does not exist or function.  Putin is a complete @sshat, but he holds onto the reigns of power.  Destabilization is a bunch of different power nodes doing what they wish...but now with spicy nukes.

That is just the military and violence end of things.  There are economic, social and a bunch of other bad seucirty things that can happen.

A stable Russia can still be a complete and utter pain but it is still in control of being that utter pain.  Coming back to our reality, all war is negotiation.  In a destabilized Russia, we are not negotiating with a single macro-social entity but a bunch of smaller, far more relatively rational ones.

Destabilization of Russia in this war is basically like trying to put out a fire by kicking it.

[billbindc]

The "US leaks all the plans!" folks having a tough morning today. 

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The "US leaks all the plans!" folks having a tough morning today. 

Well that should settle the "what can US C4ISR/all seeing eye" question fairly definitively.

[photon]

2 hours ago, Eug85 said:

But why Clausewitz? Is there really no one closer to our era?

Beaufre’s Introduction to Strategy is excellent and reflects the calculus of multiparty competition against the backdrop of nuclear weapons.

Edited August 20 by photon

[akd]

Well, they finally did it…(maybe)

 

[Artkin]

48 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The "US leaks all the plans!" folks having a tough morning today. 

Is there anyone who knows how to find a HD version of this, maybe @Haiduk?