How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

18 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

And Ukraine signaling nuclear weapons….i mean consider how our non-NATO allies think of this? Hell, consider how our NATO allies are thinking about the US’s domestic political environment, (no matter your thoughts on the domestic environment, that bill for further support for Ukraine, Israel, took months to pass, by no definition is that concrete) I mean let’s be clear no one wants war, and certainly no one wants a long war, but we are veering into territory where our allies cannot trust on us to guarantee and ensure their territorial sovereignty is retained and considering it is a hallmark of U.S foreign policy to prevent further nuclear proliferation, that is not optimal for escalation management at all I reckon. 

and recall the intent of the invasion was not simply for a targeted expansion of the eastern region of the Donbas or to provoke a more favorable settlement in the East (as most Western analysts predicted), but a attempt at decapitating the Ukrainian government to seize most if not all of Ukraine. Russia should not get to control more territory at the end of the conflict, that it might, and that the U.S seems unconcerned with that will not make any ally feel safe in the future. It is important that for all the talk on western escalation management, Russia has unfailingly not come to the table or signaled more “reasonable” positions on Ukraine that doves could pursue. 

As shown by the terms of the failed Istanbul talks, they had neither EU nor NATO membership for Ukraine, and a demobilized Ukr military, and nothing since then has indicated any softening of Russian positions and considering the defense of Ukraine up until now, anyone with a brain can see these positions are maximalist positions, and so combine that with this NK deployment, I would strongly suggest Russia is escalating, and dovish tendencies like no western missiles into Russia are in danger of signaling the opposite to Russia, that he can escalate, and if we are taking a dove position of striving for peace talks and resolution on the basis of not maximalist victory, we are failing at that.

You do realize that you are sucking and blowing at the same time in all this? One one hand all the fears of Russian escalation up to and past a nuclear threshold are "nonsense" and "empty threats."" Now on the other hand "Russia is clearly demonstrating unrestrained escalation and we should respond!"

So which is it? 

At this point I am pretty convinced that whoever wins the US election in Nov a "maximalist victory" is off the table. Unless you want to wage this war for a decade or more, and no one is signing up for that. As to "controlling more territory", after two bloody years are you seriously still tying victory or defeat to real estate. Russian losses for what is now blasted and highly contaminated land are staggering.  

Gotta give points to Putin, he was running out of Russians and found North Koreans able and willing. I am not sure pulling in NK troops is escalation as much as it is survival. Maybe this will give license for NATO nations to send in support troops into the backfield. 

[FancyCat]

3 minutes ago, Bearstronaut said:

I can’t really see a downside for Kim Jong Un in this. He doesn’t have to care about public opinion so casualties are meaningless. He gets domestic propaganda points about how big, powerful Russia requires the aid of the mighty KPA. When survivors do come home they will be combat experienced and can be filtered throughout the army to train others.

Don’t forget money and oil and grain.

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

If we come at the basis of the dovish argument that supporting Ukraine should be weary of escalation, the involvement of a 4 North Korean brigades should be regarded as clear escalation, a  sign that dovish signals to Putin for negotiations remain limited in effectiveness, and so maybe long range missiles should be allowed to hit Russian territory. I would say tit for tat but no willingness for western troops in Ukraine. Putin is still playing for keeps. It’s time the West step up. Or do we let North Korea gain combat experience and a revolving door of North Korean brigades start up? For sure North Korea probably does not have unlimited manpower, but they are certainly cheaper than Russia’s exhausted pool and if the baseline of the effectiveness is the meatwaves, no doubt they will be at that standard at least. 

This is the danger of extended conflict that I’ve vocalized much in the past against those suggesting long term conflict would only be negative for Russia, events get normalized, the world blinks at North Koreans potentially invading Ukraine now, where in 2022, most everyone would say impossible. That’s why I’ve advocated not to chance Ukraine to a long conflict, and the effects are here, Iran, North Korea supplying Russia, how long before China starts getting less risk adverse? 

it’s fine to manage escalation, but the signals from Russia do not indicate biting, they indicate further aggression. 

Lets just say the risk of trying to beat Russia quickly, vs trying to beat them slowly may have been somewhat miscalculated.

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

This is supposedly near Vladivostok.

Again assuming this is real, and who knows? These guys look considerably better than the current content of Russian meat waves. I grant that standard is under the subbasement sewage leak somewhere, but better is better.

 

Edited October 18 by dan/california

[ArmouredTopHat]

https://x.com/moklasen/status/1847330386457874743

Russian BTRs are getting hammered in Kursk meeting engagements lately, seems tanks are being fairly predominant in this too based on source suggestions. 

Edited October 18 by ArmouredTopHat

[FancyCat]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

You do realize that you are sucking and blowing at the same time in all this? One one hand all the fears of Russian escalation up to and past a nuclear threshold are "nonsense" and "empty threats."" Now on the other hand "Russia is clearly demonstrating unrestrained escalation and we should respond!"

So which is it? 

At this point I am pretty convinced that whoever wins the US election in Nov a "maximalist victory" is off the table. Unless you want to wage this war for a decade or more, and no one is signing up for that. As to "controlling more territory", after two bloody years are you seriously still tying victory or defeat to real estate. Russian losses for what is now blasted and highly contaminated land are staggering.  

Gotta give points to Putin, he was running out of Russians and found North Koreans able and willing. I am not sure pulling in NK troops is escalation as much as it is survival. Maybe this will give license for NATO nations to send in support troops into the backfield. 

To elaborate, I believe Russia would preferably back down in the face of Western escalation. That does not mean they are “empty” threats but that at the end of the day, Ukraine needs to have Russia kicked out for good and the cost for Russia can be lower than nuclear, and the West just needs to start pushing. 
While I am a hawk, at the end of the day, I want what’s best for Ukraine and I believe that the best result for Ukraine is the best result for the West. Dove positions on that framing are angled with the idea that Russia has interests in Ukraine it is unwilling to concede and it’s better to negotiate vs seek a military maximalist solution or long war, and I have no problem with that idea except as I’m pointing out, the result of this restraint is looking like a long war, and so if Ukraine cannot maximally liberate the rest of Ukraine, it should strive for a decent peace, and a decent peace is good for the West as well, except not only are we seeing maximalist victory slip, I argue that Russia’s escalation in regards to not seeking peace means it’s still wishes to attain maximalist objectives and whatever your opinion on the feasibility of it, the worst result for Ukraine is a long war, and I argue, therefore the worst outcome for the West as a result. And if escalation management is failing to bring Russia to the table for a decent solution, and failing to prevent escalation and expansion….maybe it’s time to escalate. 

[dan/california]

2 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

To elaborate, I believe Russia would preferably back down in the face of Western escalation. That does not mean they are “empty” threats but that at the end of the day, Ukraine needs to have Russia kicked out for good and the cost for Russia can be lower than nuclear, and the West just needs to start pushing. 
While I am a hawk, at the end of the day, I want what’s best for Ukraine and I believe that the best result for Ukraine is the best result for the West. Dove positions on that framing are angled with the idea that Russia has interests in Ukraine it is unwilling to concede and it’s better to negotiate vs seek a military maximalist solution or long war, and I have no problem with that idea except as I’m pointing out, the result of this restraint is looking like a long war, and so if Ukraine cannot maximally liberate the rest of Ukraine, it should strive for a decent peace, and a decent peace is good for the West as well, except not only are we seeing maximalist victory slip, I argue that Russia’s escalation in regards to not seeking peace means it’s still wishes to attain maximalist objectives and whatever your opinion on the feasibility of it, the worst result for Ukraine is a long war, and I argue, therefore the worst outcome for the West as a result. And if escalation management is failing to bring Russia to the table for a decent solution, and failing to prevent escalation and expansion….maybe it’s time to escalate. 

FancyCat said that perfectly!

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.threads.net/@tsua_23/post/DBRXnEloU_a?xmt=AQGzGZDy3oFPzTofZrH-84oMpdwPAk5EY5SjJ0KJD-6t6w

During another suicidal assault on Ukrainian positions with the support of 33 units of equipment, the enemy tried to break through the defense twice in 24 hours, but neither the morning fog nor the evening twilight helped the enemy. Thanks to the work of drone and artillery operators, most of their equipment and their crews were destroyed.

 

Total wipe, or near enough. It is interesting that the Russians don't have the gear or training to try an actual night attack.

[sburke]

42 minutes ago, Bearstronaut said:

When survivors do come home they will be combat experienced and can be filtered throughout the army to train others.

"Survivors?  Going home?  Who said anything about them coming home?" - Kim Jong Un

[MikeyD]

Western pop culture has this simple minded fantasy that if they do this one magic thing the threat will evaporate and the war will abruptly stop. Its Picard defeating the Borg queen, its Game of Thrones killing the Night King, Its Jeff Goldblum in Independence Day taking out the space invader mother ship, its Maverick bombing that one thingamabob in the unnamed aggressor country. This is a recurring theme. But unfortunately, the world isn't quite that simple. You can't do 'this one simple trick' to get a third party to stop prosecuting a war. You need to be in it for the long haul.

Edited October 19 by MikeyD

[Kraft]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Unless you want to wage this war for a decade or more, and no one is signing up for that

Had the will to change the situation to russias disadvantage been there 

Instead of the escalation management status quo which you so vehemently defend

We would not be in this situation. 

 

Calling on one hand this war "endless" but in the same breath supporting the IV drip feeding of support which has cost so many lives is cynical.

Maximalist goals, such as returning 20-30000 deported children, or moving putin away from his current non negotiating position which includes far more than what he controls, would not be necessary had Obama drawn real lines on the first aggression in 2014. But instead, its been partnering and appeasing for a good decade since thats been working so well in syria and elsewhere. Lets continue doing that or we might have North Koreans fighting on European soil, or somesuch escalations.

Only one more attempt at peace offering minsk3 talks and china will be deterred eternally, I am sure.

Edited October 18 by Kraft

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Western pop culture has this simple minded fantasy that if they do this one magic thing the threat will evaporate and the war will abruptly stop. Its Picard defeating the Borg queen, its Game of Thrones killing the Night King, Its in Jeff Goldblum in Independence Day taking out the space invader mother ship, its Maverick bombing that one thingamabob in the unnamed aggressor country. This is a recurring theme. But unfortunately, the world isn't quite that simple. You can't do 'this one simple trick' to get a third party to stop prosecuting a war. You need to be in it for the long haul.

Well there is actually one trick, but it the sum of a great many smaller ones. You have to make cost more than the other side can stand. There is quite a bit of proof that the Russians can stand a thousand casualties a day. We need to give the Ukrainians the ability to inflict three thousand casualties a day, or five thousand casualties a day, and see what happens. Instead of attacking one refinery in Russia every few days, the Ukrainians need to able to attack every refinery West of the Urals every three days, and every airbase.

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/interactive-map-hundreds-known-russian-military-objects-are-range-atacms

Interactive Map: Hundreds of Known Russian Military Objects are in Range of ATACMS

 

ISW has been kind enough to supply an annotated map and list of things in Russia that ought to be smoking holes in the ground. Send enough missiles to make it happen.

[Bearstronaut]

18 minutes ago, sburke said:

"Survivors?  Going home?  Who said anything about them coming home?" - Kim Jong Un

KJU is a ruthless bastard but he isn’t stupid. Those combat veterans will be a valuable commodity for the KPA. 

[billbindc]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Good lord this is just getting bizarre. If someone told me that NK troops would be fighting in Ukraine at divisional strength back in '22, I would have called them nuts.

Not really sure there is much the US can do. NK is such an outsider within the international community there aren't many levers left. China can put on some pressure but they do not seem so inclined.

Where it matters is South Korea. I would expect the ROK to significantly up support to Kyiv. 

[Battlefront.com]

11 hours ago, JonS said:

But even if "all" EW can do is force your enemy to use second-best, isn't that still a win.

Fibre optic links, for example, can be used to solve for a high EW environment, but it introduces a whole host of issues and constraints, and vulnerabilities of its own.

To amend what you said a little bit, it is a win if you force your opponent to either settle for second best *or* have to break open the piggy bank and buy something a lot more expensive.  Especially if said opponent has an overstretched budget.  So yes, absolutely.

However, my point remains.  EW has been, and still is, being bandied about as if it is some sort of magic wand.  It isn't and never will be.  What we're seeing now is a lot of legacy laziness being caught failing exactly as people warned it would.  GPS being the obvious "nuh-duh" example. 

If your desire is to keep your battalion assault from being laid waste, EW doesn't seem to be the solution even  today because Russia is using some of the best out there and with a lot of experience, yet their assaults are getting wiped out on a regular basis.  Which means EW already has some pretty significant failings.  Now that industry is FINALLY getting serious about EW, it seems that those failings are going to increase instead of decrease.

EW will likely continue to be important for a long time to come, but people really need to be thinking beyond that if their goal is to have reliable protection from a specific threat.

Steve

[Homo_Ferricus]

11 minutes ago, Bearstronaut said:

KJU is a ruthless bastard but he isn’t stupid. Those combat veterans will be a valuable commodity for the KPA. 

Or they'd be more of a liability. If I was KJU, terminally infected with paranoia and insecurity, thousands of hardened fighters who have seen the outside world coming back to Korea would be a huge unknown to me... They might be jaded, they might have had their perspectives changed, been exposed to dangerous ideas, made certain connections. I can imagine a military coup in Pyongyang 5 years from now, spearheaded by Ukraine veterans. I'm sure Paranoid Kim sees it, too.

I imagine KJU has bigger concerns in the event of a hot war with SK--a brigade or two of cannon fodder that now knows what to expect at the front isn't going to make any kind of positive difference to his potential outcomes.

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Homo_Ferricus said:

Or they'd be more of a liability. If I was KJU, terminally infected with paranoia and insecurity, thousands of hardened fighters who have seen the outside world coming back to Korea would be a huge unknown to me... They might be jaded, they might have had their perspectives changed, been exposed to dangerous ideas, made certain connections. I can imagine a military coup in Pyongyang 5 years from now, spearheaded by Ukraine veterans. I'm sure Paranoid Kim sees it, too.

I imagine KJU has bigger concerns in the event of a hot war with SK--a brigade or two of cannon fodder that now knows what to expect at the front isn't going to make any kind of positive difference to his potential outcomes.

The survival rate for these guys will likely be quite low.  So sending 12,000 might return 3k in reasonable shape, the rest either wounded or dead.  Now, if this keeps up and it's 12,000 every month or two, then yes cumulatively it might have some impact back home.

As for the number 12,000... that's not a small number, but it's also not big from a Russian loss perspective or the size of the front.  Russia has probably burned through more than that trying to retake Kursk, for example.  It burned through maybe 10x that many trying to take Bakhmut.  I'm not talking about losses only, I'm talking about breaking a formation to combat ineffectiveness that then needs to be rebuilt.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, acrashb said:

Apropos of the recent discussions on air superiority:

 

 

Having said what I just said about EW's limitations, THIS is the sort of thing that EW is still good for.  Jamming  and Spoofing communications and radar are tasks EW has been performing long before the term Electronic Warfare was first used.  There's ways around much of this, but it costs money even if the tech is available.

So yes, more of this please

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Having said what I just said about EW's limitations, THIS is the sort of thing that EW is still good for.  Jamming  and Spoofing communications and radar are tasks EW has been performing long before the term Electronic Warfare was first used.  There's ways around much of this, but it costs money even if the tech is available.

So yes, more of this please

Steve

Combined with 5th gen platforms like F-35 and a long list of stand off munitions, I remain convinced that NATO airpower is truly a terrifying thing and would be a serious problem for Russian AD to tangle with. We have seen them struggle against a modest AFU campaign of targeted destruction, even with some of their systems being at least on paper deadly capable. I just dont see them doing any better against Wild weasel squadrons, JASSM and the tide of other munitions NATO can throw at the problem which make the Ukrainian efforts look partly in comparison (even if they are significant achievements given the capabilities Ukraine went to war with in this department)  

[Battlefront.com]

9 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Combined with 5th gen platforms like F-35 and a long list of stand off munitions, I remain convinced that NATO airpower is truly a terrifying thing and would be a serious problem for Russian AD to tangle with. We have seen them struggle against a modest AFU campaign of targeted destruction, even with some of their systems being at least on paper deadly capable. I just dont see them doing any better against Wild weasel squadrons, JASSM and the tide of other munitions NATO can throw at the problem which make the Ukrainian efforts look partly in comparison (even if they are significant achievements given the capabilities Ukraine went to war with in this department)  

All well and fine if the US directly involved in the fight.  "Fat load of good" it does when it's not, such as the current war in Ukraine.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

A sizable aid package on the way, which includes 2000 (!) Humvees. A much needed boon for an army that often has to rely on Civilian cars for mobility. 

[danfrodo]

Some interesting bits here, some already covered on the forum, some not.  

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/10/18/2277662/-Russian-stuff-blowing-up-Ukraine-targets-Russia-s-infamous-155th-Brigade?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web

Video showing RU tanker on fire with fire increasing.  Horrific to see this happen to anyone, but he chose to fight UKR instead of defecting, surrendering, or killing his RU oppressors.  But still horrific.  I'd feel worse for him if he weren't inside  a rolling tank cannon pointed at UKR forces.

[billbindc]

An interesting take on a future Russia: 

https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/the-beatification-of-prigozhin-and-the-fight-for-the-future-of-russia/

[MikeyD]

"- A lot of HMMWVs (roughly 2000)"

Ukraine is benefitting  from other countries modernizing their own forces. How can the US afford to give away 2,000 Humvees? An easy answer - JLTV, the Humvee replacement. My local National Guard depot used to be stuffed with Humvees, now its stuffed with JLTVs. Leaving the Humvees to be... repurposed.

[danfrodo]

46 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

"- A lot of HMMWVs (roughly 2000)"

Ukraine is benefitting  from other countries modernizing their own forces. How can the US afford to give away 2,000 Humvees? An easy answer - JLTV, the Humvee replacement. My local National Guard depot used to be stuffed with Humvees, now its stuffed with JLTVs. Leaving the Humvees to be... repurposed.

It would be interesting to see a tally of military aid actually delivered to UKR, month by month, by country.  I wonder if we have perceptions that are correct or not about the amount of aid UKR actually receiving.  I keep thinking, MORE, and of course I will always want more, but it would be interesting to see the actuality.  This is probably impossible, as not everything is publicly available.  

Seems UKR needs lots and lots of IFVs, HMMVVs, MRAPs, etc, regardless of the 'armor is dead' discussion.