How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

Article in the Washington Post detailing 240 verified Russian POWs from the Kursk operation, as well as where they were taken.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/25/ukraine-kursk-offensive-russia-videos/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3ed29ba%2F66cb4e7595b05033d9009924%2F5b6a1f5bade4e277958a3cb5%2F17%2F45%2F66cb4e7595b05033d9009924

Nothing really new here, just a more detailed look at Ukraine's successes. The report states what we already know... many were conscripts.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

The lousy performance of the conscripts shows the emptiness of the 'Russia is only fighting Ukraine with 1/3 of its 1.5M military' trope beloved of the tankies.

While Putin hasn't sent (many) young draftees to date, unless they can be tricked into signing contracts, those kids don't constitute additional combat ready formations. Unless you count the meat waves, I suppose. Urra pobeda....

[Fenris]

Post with some vision of a Stryker getting field repairs after seeing action.  Edit x2 same clip on from WarTranslated - perfect subtitles on this one.

Ukraine's latest drone that it's speculated made it's debut recently hitting RU airfields

Latest video from K-2 unit with 54th Brigade showing defensive fighting narrated by the CO. Turn on auto translate UKR > English subs.

It boggles my mind how one or two MTLB's are sent out at a time again and again over the same route.  What are they hoping to achieve without having what's happened all the other times?

Edited August 26 by Fenris

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

The lousy performance of the conscripts shows the emptiness of the 'Russia is only fighting Ukraine with 1/3 of its 1.5M military' trope beloved of the tankies.

While Putin hasn't sent (many) young draftees to date, unless they can be tricked into signing contracts, those kids don't constitute additional combat ready formations. Unless you count the meat waves, I suppose. Urra pobeda....

Yup!  That is similar to some early war Western analysis pointing out that some of the brigades only had 1 or 2 tactical groups in action and that Russia could easily up that to 3.  Not only were 1-3 battalions conscripts, and therefore not able to be used without a declaration of war, but they also had f'all for equipment since the "firsts" had all the good stuff and MAYBE there was enough for the "seconds".  This became apparent even to said experts sometime in the spring of 2022 when Russian forces didn't magically go up by 33%.

As a related aside, I had a friend who was a conscript in the BW back in the 1970s and another friend from the 1980s.  Their feeling was that if the Soviet Union invaded Germany would have been screwed.  They felt their conscript units were barely qualified to count as combat worthy units.

Steve

[billbindc]

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup!  That is similar to some early war Western analysis pointing out that some of the brigades only had 1 or 2 tactical groups in action and that Russia could easily up that to 3.  Not only were 1-3 battalions conscripts, and therefore not able to be used without a declaration of war, but they also had f'all for equipment since the "firsts" had all the good stuff and MAYBE there was enough for the "seconds".  This became apparent even to said experts sometime in the spring of 2022 when Russian forces didn't magically go up by 33%.

As a related aside, I had a friend who was a conscript in the BW back in the 1970s and another friend from the 1980s.  Their feeling was that if the Soviet Union invaded Germany would have been screwed.  They felt their conscript units were barely qualified to count as combat worthy units.

Steve

Yep...it was always going to go nuclear and that's pretty much why it didn't happen. Ironic, really.

[acrashb]

ISW has a discussion about the impacts of allowing Western long-range strikes into Russia's rear areas.
"...the lifting of restrictions on Ukraine's use of Western-provided weapons would allow Ukrainian forces to strike a wide range of significant targets undergirding Russia’s war effort."
 

 

[Probus]

How much truth is there to this report of troops gathering at the Belarus border?

https://kyivindependent.com/belarus-gathering-significant-number-of-troops-weaponry-along-ukraines-border-under-guise-of-exercises-ukraine-says/

[Joe982]

2 hours ago, Probus said:

How much truth is there to this report of troops gathering at the Belarus border?

https://kyivindependent.com/belarus-gathering-significant-number-of-troops-weaponry-along-ukraines-border-under-guise-of-exercises-ukraine-says/

 

I think Putin ordered this movement. The idea is to scare Ukraine into moving troops away from one front or another.

I feel that Ukraine should move back, say 10k, from the border and allow any attack to come well into Ukraine territory. This would stop Belarus from claiming any "provocation".

 

 

[The_Capt]

7 hours ago, acrashb said:

ISW has a discussion about the impacts of allowing Western long-range strikes into Russia's rear areas.
"...the lifting of restrictions on Ukraine's use of Western-provided weapons would allow Ukrainian forces to strike a wide range of significant targets undergirding Russia’s war effort."
 

 

I have to be honest, I am skeptical on this one. This is not about Russian red lines, it is about best use of limited resources. ISW is proposing a massing strategic deep strike campaign. In order to shorten the war and erode the Russian military these targets are not one-offs they would need to be sustained strikes over time. This would put pressure on the Russian military but to cripple or really have an impact…that is a LOT of strikes. ISR is not the problem here, it is the munitions to sustain this level of effort. We are likely talking thousands of ATACMs and GMLRS. If this was an air campaign it would take weeks/months and thousands of sorties. The UA has to do it from afar with missile systems, which is even harder.

It may feel good to blow up stuff in the backfield but unless that can be translated into actual corrosive effects on the battlefield, or political pressure directly onto Putin, all that would really happen is increasing cost of this war for Russia. That is not a bad thing but it won’t likely end things earlier or give the UA offensive initiative.

If the UA took those thousands of missiles and focused them down south, or a sector in which they had specific operational objectives…like cracking the RA, then this might create better results. The theory of victory here is to break the RA locally and then exploit it.  As opposed to lobbing missiles all over the place in the backfield. Ukraine has no guarantees that if it fires all its precision munitions into Russia that 1) it will result in tangible outcomes and 2) those missiles will get replaced/sustained.  ISW proposal looks like it was designed for a different military from a different time - it looks like an Iraq solution in a fundamentally different war.

[omae2]

4 hours ago, Joe982 said:

 

I think Putin ordered this movement. The idea is to scare Ukraine into moving troops away from one front or another.

I feel that Ukraine should move back, say 10k, from the border and allow any attack to come well into Ukraine territory. This would stop Belarus from claiming any "provocation".

 

 

That would be dumb. They would just lose territory even without Belarus joining into to the war cause the wagnerite would take positions and fortify it. Not like Belarus needs a casus belli to join the war if they want.

Poland should demonstrate next to the Belarus border that would make them think twice.

Edited August 26 by omae2

[Carolus]

23 minutes ago, omae2 said:

Poland should demonstrate next to the Belarus border that would make them think twice.

How?

It is politically impossible that any Western country would make offensive moves across the borders of another country and both Russia and Belarussia know that. 

[Billy Ringo]

So much talk about the US election and its' potential impact on Ukraine, is it worthy of a similar but different discussion on Ukraine's leadership?

Zelensky: At what point does he step aside?  IMO he's done an amazing job bringing together Ukrainian and worldwide support, he's been a great Ukrainian figurehead to the rest of the world.  I don't have the chops or knowledge to judge him on his military leadership/guidance but they are still fighting what was supposed to be the 2nd most powerful military on Earth.

We've seen what 4 years of being the US President will do to a person.  It's taxing, it has to be even more challenging during fierce wartime.  Could Zelensky be running out of steam?  It has to be taking a toll on him.  Is there someone else that could step in and take over for him and do a better job or at least not be a step backward?

For the military historians on here--what is the effective leadership timetable for a President/PM/Dictator in times of war?  At what point does fatigue start to creep in?

Thanks in advance.

[Astrophel]

1 hour ago, Carolus said:

How?

It is politically impossible that any Western country would make offensive moves across the borders of another country and both Russia and Belarussia know that. 

The next US President is going to have a dilemma on Day One, unless Biden has the guts to take it on his watch which I doubt.

The world has watched the west surrender to nuclear blackmail since russia invaded over 2 years ago.  Had the West intervened in a conventional war the Russian invasion would have been toasted - still the case today.

Should the Ukraine-Russia war continue much longer we can look forward to a future in which nukes are essential for every self-respecting nation committed to self-determination.  Such a paradigm is likely to guarantee the extinction of our species and end life on our planet.

The only nation that can make a difference is USA.  Unfortunately USA is having a self obsessed moment around elections, and is led by an almost geriatric who is focussed on making it through the next five months.

Many worry about Russia disintegrating and the nukes ending up with some weirdos.  Do we not recognise yet that the Weirdo in Chief Putin already has possession of the nukes?

Sooner or later we need to give Ukraine more of a helping hand.  They deserve it and it is existential for the rest of us to depose Putin.  Forget about boiling frogs, the mad dog needs shooting fast!

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, Astrophel said:

The world has watched the west surrender to nuclear blackmail since russia invaded over 2 years ago.  Had the West intervened in a conventional war the Russian invasion would have been toasted - still the case today.

You realize nuclear blackmail cuts both ways. What has kept Russia from deploying tac nukes and lethal chemical in this current war? The famous Russian morale restraint? If Russia had deployed those WMDs in ‘22 the conventional war would be just as over.  One cannot point fingers at the West for being “weak kneed” on the nuclear equation, while at the same time forgetting that Russia is in the same box.

[Carolus]

The UN security council got vetoed by Russia when the Serbs decided to let their inner Russian spirit out in the 90s, but the UN general assembly still got a resolution passed to protect the ethnic minorities of Yugoslavia with a military intervention.

I wonder, how many rape and labor camps does Russia have to build in occupied Ukraine until the same is possible here?

Or does the nuclear equation simply fundamentally change international law and now makes genocide a legal act de facto even if it is not de jure?

Edited August 26 by Carolus

[omae2]

1 hour ago, Carolus said:

How?

It is politically impossible that any Western country would make offensive moves across the borders of another country and both Russia and Belarussia know that. 

There is no certainty in politics. If Poland do a military exercise next to the Belorussian border with everything needed for an offensive operation then Belorussia need to deploy forces to be ready if its an actual attack.

[Carolus]

7 minutes ago, omae2 said:

There is no certainty in politics. If Poland do a military exercise next to the Belorussian border with everything needed for an offensive operation then Belorussia need to deploy forces to be ready if its an actual attack.

Not a single Polish 5.56mm bullet will cross the Belarussian border unless Poland is attacked first in a significant way, no matter how many Polish troops amass along the border.

I am not sure how far gone Putin is mentally, but unless he is really misinformed and paranoid to a delusional degree, he knows he has absolutely nothing to worry about regarding a conventional attack from any NATO member or Western aligned nation. This might as well be set in stone.

Therefore there is zero deterrence whatsoever to having any maneuvers of NATO troops next to Belarussia for anything they might do to Ukraine.

Edited August 26 by Carolus

[omae2]

17 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Not a single Polish 5.56mm bullet will cross the Belarussian border unless Poland is attacked first in a significant way, no matter how many Polish troops amass along the border.

I am not sure how far gone Putin is mentally, but unless he is really misinformed and paranoid to a delusional degree, he knows he has absolutely nothing to worry about regarding a conventional attack from any NATO member or Western aligned nation. This might as well be set in stone.

Therefore there is zero deterrence whatsoever to having any maneuvers of NATO troops next to Belarussia for anything they might do to Ukraine.

If you say so.

[Carolus]

20 minutes ago, omae2 said:

If you say so.

If you have any indication that the position of Ukraine's allies, NATO or specific countries on this has in any way changed over the last years, please share so it can be examined and analyzed.

[Astrophel]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

You realize nuclear blackmail cuts both ways. What has kept Russia from deploying tac nukes and lethal chemical in this current war? The famous Russian morale restraint? If Russia had deployed those WMDs in ‘22 the conventional war would be just as over.  One cannot point fingers at the West for being “weak kneed” on the nuclear equation, while at the same time forgetting that Russia is in the same box.

Chemicals ARE being used by russia reportedly.

Yes, the certainty of bringing Nato actively into the war is one reason why nukes have not been used so far.  You are the military expert but I would have thought that nor is close-in fighting as happens in Donbass suitable for nukes as you would kill your own people.  Also the prevailing wind is towards russian territory and so irradiating your own civilian population is hardly sellable even on russian tv.

So, yes Western nukes are a deterrent and perhaps have deterred Russia in Ukraine.  A bigger deterrent to my mind is the realisation that fall-out will travel around the world killing indiscriminately Indians and Chinese and other supposed allies.  People are still dying today from the results of nuclear tests, never mind tactical nukes.  Actually nuclear weapons don't make much sense which makes me wonder why the Chinese are aiming to produce more than enough to vaporise the planet.

My point remains.  The takeaway for many from these current events is that Ukraine would not be suffering now had they too a nuclear arsenal - remember, the one they gave up for cast in iron guarantees from US and others.

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, Astrophel said:

Chemicals ARE being used by russia reportedly.

Yes, the certainty of bringing Nato actively into the war is one reason why nukes have not been used so far.  You are the military expert but I would have thought that nor is close-in fighting as happens in Donbass suitable for nukes as you would kill your own people.  Also the prevailing wind is towards russian territory and so irradiating your own civilian population is hardly sellable even on russian tv.

So, yes Western nukes are a deterrent and perhaps have deterred Russia in Ukraine.  A bigger deterrent to my mind is the realisation that fall-out will travel around the world killing indiscriminately Indians and Chinese and other supposed allies.  People are still dying today from the results of nuclear tests, never mind tactical nukes.  Actually nuclear weapons don't make much sense which makes me wonder why the Chinese are aiming to produce more than enough to vaporise the planet.

My point remains.  The takeaway for many from these current events is that Ukraine would not be suffering now had they too a nuclear arsenal - remember, the one they gave up for cast in iron guarantees from US and others.

Non lethal chemicals - tear gas.  The truly nasty **** in the Russian inventory has not been seen yet.  

So we are talking tactical nuclear weapons here, not strategic ones. If Russia was going use strategic nuclear weapons, Kyiv would be glass. Tactical nuclear weapons are designed for operational effects - blowing holes a km or two across.  Russia has somewhere in the order of 1-2000 of them: https://www.state.gov/report-on-the-status-of-tactical-nonstrategic-nuclear-weapons-negotiations/#:~:text=Russia's estimated stockpile of roughly,nuclear warheads for Russia's dual-

The levels of fallout from these weapons is much lower as the devices themselves are much lower yields - fraction to 50 kilotons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon#:~:text=8 External links-,Details,air-to-air missiles.)  So you want to take Adiivka, well you can spend 5 months losing a Bn a week or fire 2-4 tac nukes and simply blow a giant hole in UA defences.   Fallout would be manageable, but frankly Russian concern as to their own population is pretty laughable at this point.  They would simply lie and blame it on NATO.

We have been down the "Ukrainian Nuke Myth" road several times.  1) Those Soviet nuclear weapons were strategic, ranges do not add up. 2) You are making some huge assumptions on the stability of 90-00 era Ukraine to be a nuclear power. 3) Ukraine sold those nukes for cash, and weak security guarantee (read the Budapest Memo). 4) If they had tried to hold onto them, Russia or NATO would have removed them by force for reasons 1 &2.

The key takeaway is that nuclear weapons bind warfare for both sides - it is why it is called "mutual assured destruction".  So while younger generations have been raised to somehow believe that nuclear war will never happen, those of us over 50 are a lot less sure. To be honest, the nuclear constraints on Russia are much higher than I thought. Why? Because the use of tactical nuclear weapons at Kursk would be consistent with Russian doctrine - an invasion of home soil.  We have the same doctrines - how well do you suppose the US would tolerate occupation of parts of Texas? If Russia lit off some demonstration tactical nuclear weapons right now on their own soil, I seriously doubt the West would do a damned thing besides make duck noises. Yet, even Putin - bomber of children's hospitals - is holding back.

As to the Chinese...well they can read Hal Brands and hear the warhawk signals coming out of Washington as well as any.  Want to win a war over Taiwan? Create a nuclear deterrence equation where we refuse to get directly involved. Just like Russia did in Ukraine. Welcome to the rest of the 21st century.

[billbindc]

Interesting stuff: https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000010648292.html

[omae2]

1 hour ago, Carolus said:

If you have any indication that the position of Ukraine's allies, NATO or specific countries on this has in any way changed over the last years, please share so it can be examined and analyzed.

I have an indication that both of us just speculating and it would yield no fruit to continue to argue on the basis of nothing.

[Carolus]

16 minutes ago, omae2 said:

I have an indication that both of us just speculating and it would yield no fruit to continue to argue on the basis of nothing.

I base my position in the explicit western policy to not get invovled with either air or ground forces in Ukraine unless

a) weapons of mass destruction are used by Russia

b) a member of NATO is attacked in a significant manner conventionally or nonconventionally

Until either a) or b) are fulfilled, not a single bullet will be fired at Russia, unless it comes from a Ukranian barrel.

In addition, a certain degree of international agreement among allies needs to exist for any single country to go ahead in any way beyond what is currently being agreed upon.

This is explicit, publicly stated policy by various heads od state as well as the NATO secretary general, as well as based on current international law.

If you have anything which would indicate that certain countries have changed their stance, that would be very interesting and I would like to ask you again to share that information.

Edited August 26 by Carolus

[Bearstronaut]

14 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

As a related aside, I had a friend who was a conscript in the BW back in the 1970s and another friend from the 1980s.  Their feeling was that if the Soviet Union invaded Germany would have been screwed.  They felt their conscript units were barely qualified to count as combat worthy units.

I spent four years in Korea and worked alongside a ton of ROKA conscripts. They were a mixed bag to put it generously. None of them want to be there and are resentful that two years of their lives are being taken away by the government to guard the DMZ and do menial tasks for their officers and NCOs. I mean, doing menial tasks for your superiors is the life of any soldier but at least in the US Army we all volunteered to be there. I knew some outstanding ROKA soldiers but there were far too many like the dip***t PFC who kept flagging me with a loaded weapon while on a patrol up by the DMZ. Luckily, the KPA was/is even worse off. At least the ROKA soldiers get fed consistently.

Not really on topic but there is a Korean YouTuber who made a short cartoon series based on his time as a conscript in the ROK Army and it's one of the funniest military-related comedies I have ever seen. Here's episode #1