How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

13 minutes ago, Eug85 said:

Well-known Ukrainian military observer Konstantin Mashovets. Comments on the unsuccessful tests of the Russian nuclear missile Sarmat. He claims that Russia's strategic nuclear weapons are very outdated, which is why the Russians are in such a hurry to replace them.

The Kremlin's attempts to scare everyone with its nuclear missiles have ended in confusion again...

We are talking about the RS-28 (aka "Sarmat"), the newest Russian silo-based strategic missile system...

A recent attempt to "test" it from an "object" in the Plesetsk area ended once again, to put it mildly, "abnormally"...

This is the Kremlin's main hope for replacing the Soviet R-36M (aka "Voevoda"), yes, this is the same strategic missile system 15p118M, known throughout the world by the classification of the USA and NATO as - SS-18 mod 1,2,3 "Satan", or in Ukrainian - "Satan", which, in fact, currently forms the basis of the SNF (strategic nuclear forces) of the Russian Federation...

And yes, you are right...

"Voevoda" was developed in the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau, and manufactured at Yuzhmash, in Dnepr. The control system was developed in Kharkov ("Khartron") and, accordingly, has not been "serviced" for quite a long time, which included "extending" the service life of the complex", a decision of the Cabinet of Ministers (2023).

That is why the Russians are in a hurry to replace, say, the Ukrainian "Voevoda", with their own missile system "Sarmat"...

At present, the history of "tests" of the Russian "Sarmat", well, let's say, "is not very successful in terms of reputation", the latest attempt to "show off" from Plesetsk only "aggravated" it...

Putting all this together, any adequate person will have questions about the real technical condition of the Russian strategic nuclear forces, at least about their main part - silo-based missiles...

Apparently another reason Putin needs Ukraine is to be able to service his old Soviet missiles. Without it, Russia's nuclear forces are in danger of losing their combat capability.

https://t.me/zvizdecmanhustu/2200

After a week of epic trolling you have come around to my favorite hobby horse from two thousand pages ago. How much of Russias nuclear arsenal is actually in working order? Sadly the solid conclusion was that the answer is probably enough. 

[akd]

Crazy video:

Might need to watch on Telegram to get full picture.

[LongLeftFlank]

42 minutes ago, omae2 said:

If they manage to push out most of their competitors thru price they can shrink the European industries. There was YouTube video about this:

 

Basically EU wants Green but lack the resources to produce a lot of green stuff cheap, china owns a lot of resources and pushing into Africa to get more. They get not just the money and resources but they shrink the European industry in the same time as well.

Yup (to your comment, I didn't watch the video), but it's even worse than that, the smug shiny private equity devcos (and their wannabees in regular industry) who are pushing RE the hardest also insist on 20-24% door-to-door returns on their equity, building themselves big beach houses while  congratulating themselves on saving the planet (and it badly needs saving, sure, but does it need to massively enrich a bunch of smug finance wankers into the bargain?).

...With the end of cheap debt, this One (or .0001) Percenter gravy train all now rides on China continuing to shove the cost of everything through the floor.

So this isn't all some sinister Chinese plot foisted on us. Our financial overclass has opened the door wide to all this, and made sure their pet polticians roll out the red carpet.

[Kraft]

52 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Sadly the solid conclusion was that the answer is probably enough.

Nobody lifted a finger to stop a mercenary group from marching on the capitol, not even public condemnations happened before it was clear who'd come out on top.

I think there is serious precedent that the people in high kremlin places are cynical and corrupt for personal gain, the direct opposite of a death cult willing to die for some map borders. 

So even in the crazysphere of "escalatory strategic nuking" because Prokrovsk hasnt fallen/ or belgorod being besieged, putin would have to consider the real possibility that he will accidentally nuke himself. Not sure that has been part of the usual game theory applications.

Edited 3 hours ago by Kraft

[poesel]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Sure, and I've been a China bear since 2009; empty cities, colossal overcapacity, etc. There is already hell to pay, and three generations of hardworking Chinese strivers are going to find themselves robbed of the comfortable bourgeois lifestyle they thought they would have. But will it get bad enough for their dissent to matter to the rulers?

I think the #1 task for Chinas KP is to make sure that the citizens are not getting angry. The Chinese are pretty chill with having no political opinion. But if you touch their money - that fires them pretty fast. Remember when that real estate giant went done? That got pretty close to riots.
There also seems to be a 'political limit'. When they stood around with blank pieces of paper and suddenly Covid restrictions were over.

So does their dissent matter? Not that much as in the west, but there is a pretty sharp breaking point. A point the KP has to stay clear of. And the time when the KP could move this point at their will is over.

 

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

TL:DR  Civilian industrial power = military power. Full stop.

Whom was it here who used to have the sigline: 'those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who don't'?

By this metric, China would have about 2/3rds of US military power and Japan & Germany each 1/5th. I'm pretty sure that is not the case.

Potential power - yes.

38 minutes ago, omae2 said:

Basically EU wants Green but lack the resources to produce a lot of green stuff cheap, china owns a lot of resources and pushing into Africa to get more. They get not just the money and resources but they shrink the European industry in the same time as well.

Not much to shrink in these areas anymore.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Kornet knocking out a Bradley at Pokrovsk, though the crew seem to escape despite the potency of such a system (assuming it was carrying no dismounts) Really shows the survivability of such a vehicle as Dimitri indicates when I imagine a BMP would do its best to launch its occupants into space. 

I really hope there were no dismounts, because if they were I don't hold out much hope they survived.  The primary reason being that the bulk of the Bradley's profile is the passenger section, therefore the most likely place (all else being equal) for a hit is there.  ERA is definitely something that can make a difference here, but the chances of stopping two direct hits without any form of penetration is, IMHO, rather low.

Still, the amount of protection afforded by the Bradley continues to be very impressive.  The Kornet is the most potent ATGM on the Soviet side.  Only a tank round competes with it's ability to directly slice through armor.  I think we can all picture what would have happened if a single Kornet hit a BMP.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Eug85 said:

The successful testing of the Sarmat missile was supposed to further frighten Westerners, lend weight to Putin's recent threats, and give a trump card to pro-Putin politicians in the West who are intimidating their citizens with Russia's power and the need to negotiate with Russia. But things did not go according to plan.

As an example if this:

With nuclear option unlikely, Putin struggles to defend his red lines

There’s a growing realization in the Kremlin that the West is not falling for its nuclear threats and Putin is searching for new ways to enforce his red lines.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/22/putin-russia-red-lines-nuclear-threat-retaliation/

The article was written probably a day or two before the failed missile test, so it didn't even include undermining the nuclear threat even further.

For those who can't read the article or don't have the time, it can be easily summarized as listing off all the things Russia said were "red lines" that the West crossed and Russia did very little or nothing to so much as demonstrate escalation. 

The article said just about the only success Russia has had with the nuclear threat is with the far right in the West, specifically citing Trump, MAGA (generally), and RFK Jr. as examples.  We can also add people like Elon Musk, Roger Waters, and others with outsized public voices.

All that said, it would be a massive mistake to think that Russia couldn't deliver a significant amount of nuclear pain on a target of its choosing.  The failed missile test simply hints that some portions of Russia's nuclear capabilities is not what it once was.

Steve

[Ultradave]

36 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

As an example if this:

With nuclear option unlikely, Putin struggles to defend his red lines

There’s a growing realization in the Kremlin that the West is not falling for its nuclear threats and Putin is searching for new ways to enforce his red lines.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/22/putin-russia-red-lines-nuclear-threat-retaliation/

The article was written probably a day or two before the failed missile test, so it didn't even include undermining the nuclear threat even further.

For those who can't read the article or don't have the time, it can be easily summarized as listing off all the things Russia said were "red lines" that the West crossed and Russia did very little or nothing to so much as demonstrate escalation. 

The article said just about the only success Russia has had with the nuclear threat is with the far right in the West, specifically citing Trump, MAGA (generally), and RFK Jr. as examples.  We can also add people like Elon Musk, Roger Waters, and others with outsized public voices.

All that said, it would be a massive mistake to think that Russia couldn't deliver a significant amount of nuclear pain on a target of its choosing.  The failed missile test simply hints that some portions of Russia's nuclear capabilities is not what it once was.

Steve

That last is the issue. Both Russia and the US have more than enough weapons to ensure that even if a significant number of them are intercepted, fail somehow, or don't even launch, there are more than enough that will. Their land-based missiles appear to have issues. Russia's Bulova SLBMs initially had a lot of problems too, but those seem to have been fixed and many of their SSBNs are also reasonably modern now. I don't think there is any guarantee that we could shadow, find, and sink ALL of Russia's SSBNs before they could launch a pretty significant number of warheads. Same goes for for the reverse (them sinking ours), but most likely even more so. Both sides SSBN fleets are there as the part of the triad that can't really be neutralized. 

The real wild card is that you'd not know the full answer until it's way too late.

Just for clarification, I'm not disclosing any inside knowledge here. I designed and tested them (subs), not operated them. That and experience in non-proliferation verification (more of an issue with verifying that decommissioned nukes stay that way and don't get diverted). 

Dave

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, dan/california said:

After a week of epic trolling you have come around to my favorite hobby horse from two thousand pages ago. How much of Russias nuclear arsenal is actually in working order? Sadly the solid conclusion was that the answer is probably enough. 

I am not sure reports of Russian nuclear stockpiles crumbling is good news. The largest threat of nuclear use right now is accidental or human error. If the Russian processes and system to control those weapons is falling apart this raises the chances of error, not decrease it.

The whole “silly westerners…nukes” is dangerous on two fronts. First the far right has grabbed onto it disingenuously as a reason to back off and stop supporting Ukraine (we had a very loud poster roll through here yesterday claiming exactly this). And then there are the very real dangers these weapons pose, especially if Russian central control is failing. We live in a time where anyone under 45 has pretty much grown up outside of the Armageddon threat. It has been absent for nearly 35 years. So we have a generation plus, of people who think nuclear weapons are not a real thing.

Problem is that they are. And it only takes a few to really make the war up to this point look quaint. So what? Well we don’t abandon Ukraine. But we also don’t blindly agree to every escalation and wild idea either.

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Still, the amount of protection afforded by the Bradley continues to be very impressive.  The Kornet is the most potent ATGM on the Soviet side.  Only a tank round competes with it's ability to directly slice through armor.  I think we can all picture what would have happened if a single Kornet hit a BMP.

Oh for sure nothing much is going to be able to resist a Kornet, they were causing problem for Merkeva Mk4s in Israel's conflicts and are highly rated against MBTs in general. (I'm not sure anything can really boast of having 'full proof' protection against them) As you say they are up there with APFSDS and penetrating power. Which is why its all the more surprising and impressive the Brad ate two and still kept its crew alive without immolating itself in the process, even if it was likely knocked out / destroyed in the process.  

Wasn't there something not too long about the Russians complaining about shortages of ATGMs? Or was that tied to the Kherson region? Footage of them in action for both sides does seem to be increasingly rare (I recall the period of 2023 that saw quite a bit of Stugna footage from the AFU)

Edited 1 hour ago by ArmouredTopHat

[KoopCL]

45 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

That last is the issue. Both Russia and the US have more than enough weapons to ensure that even if a significant number of them are intercepted, fail somehow, or don't even launch, there are more than enough that will. Their land-based missiles appear to have issues. Russia's Bulova SLBMs initially had a lot of problems too, but those seem to have been fixed and many of their SSBNs are also reasonably modern now. I don't think there is any guarantee that we could shadow, find, and sink ALL of Russia's SSBNs before they could launch a pretty significant number of warheads. Same goes for for the reverse (them sinking ours), but most likely even more so. Both sides SSBN fleets are there as the part of the triad that can't really be neutralized. 

And even beyond that, even in the basically impossible scenario that 99.9% of Russia's nuclear warheads are duds or were long ago sold in the black market, all you need is a single working nuke. Literally just one to trigger a response. And even in the scenario where cooler heads prevail and no apocalyptic response is triggered, then you face the dark scenario where the nuclear taboo as been finally broken, nukes are back on the menu as weapons of war.

 

Any scenario where even a single nuke is used can quickly snowball to become a veritable ****show, and I think those in charge (either in the NATO nuclear powers, or in Russia, or anywhere else) know that clearly (and Im also reasonably sure that India and China share that belief and made it clear to Putin). My biggest fear would be an actual lunatic climbing their way to the top amongst the chaos (if, for example, Putin gets coup'd. Scary scenario, would someone like Progozhin be dumb enough to actually use a nuke without understanding the consequences?). 

[Butschi]

11 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

That last is the issue. Both Russia and the US have more than enough weapons to ensure that even if a significant number of them are intercepted, fail somehow, or don't even launch, there are more than enough that will. Their land-based missiles appear to have issues. Russia's Bulova SLBMs initially had a lot of problems too, but those seem to have been fixed and many of their SSBNs are also reasonably modern now. I don't think there is any guarantee that we could shadow, find, and sink ALL of Russia's SSBNs before they could launch a pretty significant number of warheads. Same goes for for the reverse (them sinking ours), but most likely even more so. Both sides SSBN fleets are there as the part of the triad that can't really be neutralized. 

The real wild card is that you'd not know the full answer until it's way too late.

Just for clarification, I'm not disclosing any inside knowledge here. I designed and tested them (subs), not operated them. That and experience in non-proliferation verification (more of an issue with verifying that decommissioned nukes stay that way and don't get diverted). 

Dave

I fully trust your expertise and I agree to your points.  But I think your view may be too US centric. I doubt that the Kremlin is going to risk nuclear war with US unless absolutely desperate, meaning they fear for their own lives, their power, or they have nothing more to lose. The second would apply to attempts to attack the Russian nuclear arsenal (including their SSBNs) because that would take away their trump card. The third would of course apply to a nuclear first strike by the US.

The experts should please contradict me if I'm telling nonsense but I think similar things apply to the US. Even during the Cold War things like flexible response made it clear that the USA would not necessarily risk nuclear Armageddon if other options seemed viable.

So, what? Thinking of the Russian nuclear option in terms of a confrontation between Russia and the USA/NATO is IMHO looking at it from the wrong perspective. Meaning, I think US subs won't be hunting Russian SSBNs to prevent them from launching because they are no threat to the US.

Right now, as long as Putin & Co think/believe/hope they can and will still win this war, the possible repercussions for Russia would outweigh the gains because even the political fallout would be severe. If things go increasingly south for Russia, though, there may come a tipping point where detonating a nuke over the black sea or if things go even farther south, wiping out a Ukrainian city, doesn't have to be Kyiv, look viable to the Kremlin.

Going back to my initial statement, I'm certain that wouldn't trigger a nuclear retaliation from US/NATO and I very much doubt it would even trigger a direct conventional confrontation as some have claimed before. Ironically one of the reasons would be that we could then say with certainty that Russia is willing to go nuclear.

No political message from my side, just saying that I think that there is a level of nuclear escalation that doesn't directly involve the West and therefore has a significantly lower threshold.

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Ultradave said:

That last is the issue. Both Russia and the US have more than enough weapons to ensure that even if a significant number of them are intercepted, fail somehow, or don't even launch, there are more than enough that will. Their land-based missiles appear to have issues. Russia's Bulova SLBMs initially had a lot of problems too, but those seem to have been fixed and many of their SSBNs are also reasonably modern now. I don't think there is any guarantee that we could shadow, find, and sink ALL of Russia's SSBNs before they could launch a pretty significant number of warheads. Same goes for for the reverse (them sinking ours), but most likely even more so. Both sides SSBN fleets are there as the part of the triad that can't really be neutralized. 

The real wild card is that you'd not know the full answer until it's way too late.

Just for clarification, I'm not disclosing any inside knowledge here. I designed and tested them (subs), not operated them. That and experience in non-proliferation verification (more of an issue with verifying that decommissioned nukes stay that way and don't get diverted). 

Dave

It's also clear that Russian missile forces are far better trained and resourced than the other branches of the military. Yes, they have problems. Nuclear programs always do. But there is no question that there is plenty of excess capacity to use in case of war.

[dan/california]

7 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I fully trust your expertise and I agree to your points.  But I think your view may be too US centric. I doubt that the Kremlin is going to risk nuclear war with US unless absolutely desperate, meaning they fear for their own lives, their power, or they have nothing more to lose. The second would apply to attempts to attack the Russian nuclear arsenal (including their SSBNs) because that would take away their trump card. The third would of course apply to a nuclear first strike by the US.

The experts should please contradict me if I'm telling nonsense but I think similar things apply to the US. Even during the Cold War things like flexible response made it clear that the USA would not necessarily risk nuclear Armageddon if other options seemed viable.

So, what? Thinking of the Russian nuclear option in terms of a confrontation between Russia and the USA/NATO is IMHO looking at it from the wrong perspective. Meaning, I think US subs won't be hunting Russian SSBNs to prevent them from launching because they are no threat to the US.

Right now, as long as Putin & Co think/believe/hope they can and will still win this war, the possible repercussions for Russia would outweigh the gains because even the political fallout would be severe. If things go increasingly south for Russia, though, there may come a tipping point where detonating a nuke over the black sea or if things go even farther south, wiping out a Ukrainian city, doesn't have to be Kyiv, look viable to the Kremlin.

Going back to my initial statement, I'm certain that wouldn't trigger a nuclear retaliation from US/NATO and I very much doubt it would even trigger a direct conventional confrontation as some have claimed before. Ironically one of the reasons would be that we could then say with certainty that Russia is willing to go nuclear.

No political message from my side, just saying that I think that there is a level of nuclear escalation that doesn't directly involve the West and therefore has a significantly lower threshold.

After the Mossad's epic demonstration of what a REAL supply chain attack looks like, any major power with a hint of a brain would like a year to check through their  stuff before starting a new war. Given that Russia builds far more of its stuff from imported components than anyone else, they should be at the front of that list

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

It's also clear that Russian missile forces are far better trained and resourced than the other branches of the military. Yes, they have problems. Nuclear programs always do. But there is no question that there is plenty of excess capacity to use in case of war.

To note in addition from this: Russia are hardly the only country not to have issues / test failures with their nuclear weapons. The UK had a trident test launch this very year that failed to considerable embarrassment, with it being the second in a row no less. Even so, these tests are meant precisely to find and identify such problems and make them easier to fix. Simulations only do so much. 

Yet I doubt many people overall doubt the UK capability to in fact deliver a nuclear response, we should probably judge the Russians by the same metric even if they are likely to have drastically more problems with their arsenal (With it being utterly massive with many of said warheads no doubt being well beyond their use by date)
 

 

Edited 28 minutes ago by ArmouredTopHat

[billbindc]

6 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

To note in addition from this: Russia are hardly the only country not to have issues / test failures with their nuclear weapons. The UK had a trident test launch this very year that failed to considerable embarrassment, with it being the second in a row no less. Even so, these tests are precisely to find and identify such problems and make them easier to fix. Simulations only do so much. 

Yet I doubt many people overall doubt the UK capability to in fact deliver a nuclear response, we should probably judge the Russians by the same metric even if they are likely to have drastically more problems with their arsenal (With it being utterly massive with many of said warheads no doubt being well beyond their use by date)
 

 

In addition, we should be happier that Russia is doing these tests and fixing their problems. Creaky nuclear programs are inherently more destabilizing and prone to escalatory pressures than well run nuclear forces. 

[omae2]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Yup (to your comment, I didn't watch the video), but it's even worse than that, the smug shiny private equity devcos (and their wannabees in regular industry) who are pushing RE the hardest also insist on 20-24% door-to-door returns on their equity, building themselves big beach houses while  congratulating themselves on saving the planet (and it badly needs saving, sure, but does it need to massively enrich a bunch of smug finance wankers into the bargain?).

...With the end of cheap debt, this One (or .0001) Percenter gravy train all now rides on China continuing to shove the cost of everything through the floor.

So this isn't all some sinister Chinese plot foisted on us. Our financial overclass has opened the door wide to all this, and made sure their pet polticians roll out the red carpet.

The Chinese exploit every flaw in our systems. They know what they doing and they planning for long time.

2 hours ago, poesel said:

Not much to shrink in these areas anymore.

Oh there is always a deeper pit.

[JonS]

1 hour ago, Ultradave said:

I don't think there is any guarantee that we could shadow, find, and sink ALL of Russia's SSBNs before they could launch a pretty significant number of warheads.

I dont think theres any reasonable way the US can expect to sink ANY Russian SSBNs before they launched a significant number of missiles/warheads.

It's not a technological or tactical problem: I am more than happy to assume that USN hunter-killer subs are more capable of finding Russian subs than the Russians are of hiding.

It's a political/legal problem; until the Russians start launching they just aren't valid targets, and once they start launching it's already too late.

Edited 58 minutes ago by JonS

[akd]

Looking forward to the appearance of Marine-Schützen-Bataillon “Kuznetzov” at the Front.

 

[dan/california]

15 minutes ago, akd said:

Looking forward to the appearance of Marine-Schützen-Bataillon “Kuznetzov” at the Front.

 

That ship is a disaster and always has been, but I wonder if this represents another creaking noise from the feed chute of Russian meat grinder. 

Edit: I mean it is a pretty big admission that your only "operational" aircraft carrier is a hopeless mess.

Edited 20 minutes ago by dan/california

[ArmouredTopHat]

A pretty interesting observation made to the Aussie SEPv3s that are incoming soon, which have the mounting points for the trophy system put in as standard. Could see another potential adopter of the system down the line. 
 

Also something to note: quite a high ratio of breaching vehicles to SEPv3s, nearly 2:1. 

[dan/california]

Apparently lying for Putin day in and day out is stressful, one of these picture is from 2016, and one of them is from this week.