How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[danfrodo]

28 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

 

 

and carries hellfire & other missiles? 

[DesertFox]

2 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

and carries hellfire & other missiles? 

I hope so. We will learn for sure if POTUS gives ok for the Predators.

[sburke]

4 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

I hope so. We will learn for sure if POTUS gives ok for the Predators.

I hear you can get those at the same Walmart that the separatists bought Grads and Tanks at.

[dan/california]

You can't be more in favor of raining death on the Russians than I am. But I don't think the MQ-1 can operate in the air defense environment in Ukraine. On the other hand the Baraktayars have proven vastly harder for the Russians to kill than most people thought they would. But the MQ-1 is quite a bit bigger, and presumably has a larger radar signature.

[DesertFox]

 

 

[Machor]

15 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

The RA ranks seem to be heavily country lads and non-Slavs who -- as hard as it may be to believe for us parents of teens, lol! -- don't grow up glued to screens since many grew up in clapboard shacks in the nonwired hinterlands.

A socioeconomic dive into the Russian army ranks:

"What do we know about background and social position of #Russian soldiers, who are deployed in #Ukraine? BBC analysed publicly available info about 1083 Russian servicemen, who were killed in action. Here are some tendencies were found out."

"Regions that reported the highest number of the losses are so called depressed or semi depressed, ie areas with high unemployment and a low standard of living. In Dagestan (93 reported deaths) or Buryatia (53 rep. deaths) it’s very hard to find a job (let alone well paid job)"

"In #Dagestan unemployment rate is 15% (compared to average 4% in #Russia), average salary - 400 USD. If one joins army as private they can around 500 USD, but army also provide them food, uniform and a place to live. So a bigger part of the salary remains in your pocket"

"During “special operations” salary of a private infantryman of Russian army can reach 2.200 USD because of bonuses. Or even 2.600 USD if you are a sergeant or corporal. This is huge money for those living in the regions"

"20% of officially confirmed losses come from 10 Russia's depressed regions (plus Dagestan). If we add numbers from semi-depressed regions - it will be roughly 80% of all losses reported by Russian official sources (ie local officials, media and schools)."

"Striking example - there are zero(!) reports about military casualties from Moscow. Even Ukrainian sources never mentioned anyone from Moscow city, who was captured or killed in Ukraine."

 

[The Steppenwulf]

1 hour ago, akd said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/ukraine-russia-war-consequences/629541/

From the article:  
 

Quote

Decisive action is urgently required to tip the balance between a costly success and a calamity.

The costs of failure for the West are pretty high, the costs to Ukrainian nation could get a lot worse yet, regardless of their chances of victory.

And:

Quote

The war may get worse. If the Russians use chemical weapons, the United States should rethink its unwillingness to introduce a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

I know some on this forum are all for US/Nato intervention (even if just imposing a no fly zone) and I respect that view, but I stand on the side of thought that the west's strategy; that is, management of escalation, balanced against ensuring that Putin is defeated, is the prudent one.

Clearly though the dial has moved somewhat as we enter a new phase of the war. But equally at this juncture, Putin has also given the West an excuse to now recalibrate the balance of their strategic approach. I reason this because obviously we now know about war crimes; the murder of civilians in Bucha etc; use of cluster munitions in Kharkiv; and (with some assumptions at this stage) the use of a chemical weapon in Mariupol. In light of this, the best most immediate and effective response, but retaining the balance of both escalation and necessity to support Ukraine to maximise a Russian defeat, is for the US (by hook or by crook) to get those Polish MiG 29's into Lviv.

I know I'm repeating my own post here from 300 pages and 3-4 weeks back, but this move in my view is now the most proportionate response (if it wasn't before), and it's a move at a critical point in this conflict (as per the article and as we all aware) where it could be most effective to bring about a Russian defeat. 

I also considered the possibility that this action could give Putin an excuse to attack Poland, but I think that's highly improbable, given article 5 and the fact that Russia has not attacked UK, Germany or anyone else who has supplied lethal assets - those countries have already tested the water and Putin has done nothing. I can only conclude that Putin would be stumped for a response and would just have to suck it up.

EDIT: Just saw @DesertFoxpost about the Slovakian MiGs. A very apt coincidence. We'll add those to the offering too. That makes 40 in total.   

Edited April 13, 2022 by The Steppenwulf

[acrashb]

47 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Either they're holding back the One Ring or...there is no One Ring, just a gilded hula-hoop

Thanks for your friend's thoughts, interesting.  I'm holding out for hula-hoop, but if anyone outside of Russia knows, they aren't talking.  Overall, glad I'm no longer working directly in critical infrastructure, days would be a lot longer.

56 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

The NYT PW is a cookie-based joke.

Which made it unusually easy

[dan/california]

https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/on-future-wars-and-the-marine-corps-asking-the-right-questions/

We need this guy on the thread. I wonder if Steve has met him.

[Harmon Rabb]

 

Any idea what kind of artillery Ukraine may get from the U.S.?

[akd]

1 minute ago, Harmon Rabb said:

 

Any idea what kind of artillery Ukraine may get from the U.S.?

Unmarked M109s rolling through Poland might have something to do with it.

[Huba]

1 minute ago, Harmon Rabb said:

 

Any idea what kind of artillery Ukraine may get from the U.S.?

HIMARS/ GMLRS combination would seem the most logical. Gives a hell of a lot of capability with small logistical footprint compared to traditional MLRS.

I'm not sure if tube arty makes sense at this point given the problems with ammunition supply that would ensue. Those rail transports of M109s might indicate otherwise though.

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, Huba said:

HIMARS/ GMLRS combination would seem the most logical. Gives a hell of a lot of capability with small logistical footprint compared to traditional MLRS.

I'm not sure if tube arty makes sense at this point given the problems with ammunition supply that would ensue. Those rail transports of M109s might indicate otherwise though.

Ammo issue cuts both ways. It is a different kind of ammo, which is obviously bad, and introduces logistical complications. On the plus side it lets Ukraine draw from modern NATO ammo stocks. Hopefully including PGMs, if you have to ship it all the way across Ukraine in a hurry, you might as well send the good stuff. 

[Huba]

Makes sense if you think of it this way, maybe it's better to introduce this equipment sooner then later. We should see soon enough. If this trends sets in, soon we'll see the Cold Ware era equipment from both sides finally going at each other, 30 years after we assumed it will never happen. Strange times indeed.

[Erwin]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Now I'm confused.  I made a point that your incessant posting that this is going to be a long war, despite targeted discussions to challenge this notion, is an annoying distraction.  It's easy to maintain your point of view if you avoid defending it.

And why are you bringing up Mariupol?  Russia will almost certainly capture it unless something much larger changes.  In fact, even with all of Russia's battlefield incompetence I thought they would have already taken it by now.   So what exactly is your point?

Er, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying.  There is a bigger picture out there and it needs to be examined as it is, not as it once was or is imagined to be.  The thing is you're the one that's not examining it.  Instead it seems you're listening to the same sources that have been wrong about this war from day one and are not questioning their grasp of what is really going on in the big picture.

As for the mass media, and I'll include the WSJ stuff I've read, they do not have a good track record for calling this war.  However, that doesn't mean I ignore it.  I take what they have to say and I compare it against what is really going on and my 30+ years of studying war.  Including simulating it as a profession.

Ironically, you are the one that is missing the much larger issues.  You are convinced that this is going to be a very long war (i.e. years) and yet you have not once engaged in any of the discussion challenging this sort of notion.  Including direct responses to your statements.

We've discussed these points in detail and continue to do so.  What apparently we're missing is your brilliant insights as to why those of us who have concluded Russia can't hack this sort of extended war are wrong.  So once again I'll invite you to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.  Take up the challenge of showing why Russia can survive this long term.  Since you're so convinced of it, that really isn't too much to ask... is it?

Steve

I thought I had made it abundantly several times clear why Russia can survive long term. 1) Russia has a history of absorbing terrible punishment not only from invaders but also from its own govt, Tsars and Stalin - punishment that we have not been accustomed to in the west since the dark ages.  ie:  We need to take into account the Russian character which is not merely an eastern version of our liberal democratic outlook.  2) Putin has not simply survived but flourished in the last 25+ years.  We should be very leery of claims that he will easily be displaced.  However, if he is not removed, he will keep this thing going until he gets a "victory" even if it's only something he can spin for his own audience.  3) China and other emerging powers like India, Iran and also ME countries are already hedging their bets as they see big advantages in displacing the USD as the world reserve currency and creating a new power axis around China which they see as the future world dominator.  These nations are, and will continue, propping up Russia so long as they see hope for their own agendas.  (And AFAIK, Europe is still (shockingly) paying Russia billlions for gas and oil imports.)

I may very well be wrong about this going on into May, June etc.  But, my point is that academics have been predicting since February that this will all be over very soon and that Russia will "lose" without explaining what "win" or "lose" actually looks like in the big picture. We are now two months past February and there is no end in sight.  Am not trying to argue as to who was right or wrong with their February predictions.  We can chat indefinitely about military battles being won.  Am simply trying to different viewpoint re what may potentially be happening regarding the big picture war.  

[dan/california]

Another pic of the busted bridge, still not the view of the failure point I really want. It looks like the whole end of the bridge landed about two feet down on a lip in the abutment, shame it didn't buckle from the shock and land in the river.

[dan/california]

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hdWRpb2Jvb20uY29tL2NoYW5uZWxzLzUwMzk5MTgucnNz?sa=X&ved=0CAMQ4aUDahcKEwiQkuf-_o_3AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAQ

This is GOOD!

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

"We must understand that not all Russian tanks are stuck in fields, not all enemy soldiers simply flee the battlefield and not all of them are conscripts who do not know how to hold weapons properly," he said. (Zelenskiy)

This is a brilliant statement.  It reminds everybody to not take for granted their victories, while at the same time humiliating the Russians about their performance thus far.

I'll add this one to "I don't need a ride, I need more bullets" statement.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

 ....without explaining what "win" or "lose" actually looks like in the big picture. We are now two months past February and there is no end in sight.

“How did you go bankrupt?"

"Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

― Hemingway

It would be some consolation for the feebleness of ourselves and our works if all things should perish as slowly as they come into being; but as it is, increases are of sluggish growth, but the way to ruin is rapid. -- Seneca

 

1. Old friend, you keep defaulting to hoary generalities about Russia and the Russians that simply don't hold true any more. No more endless reserves of hardy rural manpower and trackless hinterland. Plus, it's the enemy which is defending its homes now, not them, an enemy who is now long used to fighting them and knows all their tricks.

2. Hitler was a huge gambler too and kept on winning big, right up until 1941 (Aug or Nov depending on whether you draw the line at Yelnya or the dismissal of Guderian)

3. India and China are shooting at each other in the Himalayas right now, so I don't even know where to get started on this red herring. China already buys whatever resources they like from Siberia; eliminating the competition merely gets them a cheaper price. This is NOT good for Russia compared to the status quo ante.

[EDIT]Take it from a longtime expat whose living depends on knowing such things: China hasn't been in the business of shoveling money or stuff to buy popularity abroad since late 2017 at the latest. It's all cash and carry now, in the grasping Chinese manner which would make a Scotsman blush.  Cash or the equivalent in resources....

So don't look for a flood of Chinese knockoff killer drones or hypersonic robot dogs or wev to turn the tables for Mother Russia and usher in the Pax Sinitica. Anyway, they know to save any good stuff -- inasmuch as they are able to make such things because they still can't make a 12nm microchip -- for themselves.

Edited April 13, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, acrashb said:

Further to my previous lengthy post, in addition to other speculations I'm wondering if the Russian cyber warfare groups are as borked as the kinetic warfare people.  Someone pointed out earlier that NATO had threatened Article 5, but cyber warfare difficult to clearly attribute to a specific threat actor, and in any event the language used was “massive cyber attack”; we haven't even see significant pinpricks.  You'd think that messing up air traffic control at one of the Polish airports taking in Western aid would be a priority, but nothing, at least not in the public domain.

I've not been quite as baffled by the absence as many others.  Why?  Well, because I figured their offensive capabilities were probably somewhat exaggerated as their kinetic forces are.  Though not NEARLY as much, so I'm still surprised we haven't seen more attacks.

My personal pet theory as to why things haven't been as bad as they have been is that the West has signaled to Russia that if they think of it as a cyber attack they'll soon find themselves in a cyber war.  We do not know what was said through official and unofficial channels to convey this message.  Article 5 could have been mentioned.  However, it is also possible that something of Russia's went offline that they haven't told anybody about.  The West might have said "oh yeah, remember when Coal Plant #2 had a failure of its primary air scrubber?  Oh wait, you didn't tell anybody about that?  Well, lucky guess.  It would be good if we don't need to make more lucky guesses".

If the official Russian government hacking resources are being kept on a short leash, this might have more of an impact downstream to its proxy cyber warriors than experts expected.  If the proxies are paid for their attacks they might be more willing to do what Russia asks of them, including restraint.  It could also be that little Ivan sitting in his mom's basement gets a message from his GRU handler that says "your health will be a lot better if you act after hearing from us than if you hear from us after you act."

I think Russia has a lot more influence on its non-state actors than we might have taken into account before the war.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

 

 

These drones are very complicated to fly.  The operators need quite a lot of training.  Now, I know that NATO said they wouldn't send anybody into Ukraine while the war is hot... but maybe?  Or why not have a Ukrainian operator working the joystick while sitting above a Berlin cafe or New York diner?  The US operates these particular drones from half a world away so it is definitely possible on the technical side.

Steve

[danfrodo]

I think the lack of cyber attacks is just what Steve said:  he has more to fear from us than we have to fear from him -- by a mile.  Same thing on military side.  He struts around saying NATO better keep out while he's secretly peeing his pants every time he thinks of NATO missiles & drones & jets smashing his tanks & navy. 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, The Steppenwulf said:

I know some on this forum are all for US/Nato intervention (even if just imposing a no fly zone) and I respect that view, but I stand on the side of thought that the west's strategy; that is, management of escalation, balanced against ensuring that Putin is defeated, is the prudent one.

Count me amongst the emotionally reluctant cool head must prevail type.

The safest way for Ukraine, and the rest of the world, for this war to end is by NATO not being involved.  Why do I say that?  Because if NATO is involved then Russia really has nothing to lose because within a few days it will lose everything anyway. 

Tactical nuke, chemical/bio weapons, whatever... they are most likely to be thrown at Ukraine first because that is already lost ground at that point.  Poison the well.  Attacking something like the Baltics means vastly more destruction of Russia, so I don't think that will be Russia's first "go to" escalation.

And if we do start exchanging strategic nukes, guess who will get a large number of tac nukes in the process?  Yeah, Ukraine.

The war is winnable for Ukraine with Western/NATO assistance.  Let's keep going with that until Putin obligates a shift of NATO's strategy.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

I thought I had made it abundantly several times clear why Russia can survive long term.

And there was significant push back on each of your points every time you did so.  Counter arguments that you opted to not challenge, then you came back with the same trashed arguments again as if they were still intact.  So let's see what you do after this... ignore or challenge... it's your choice, but ignoring is the same as admitting you're wrong.

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

1) Russia has a history of absorbing terrible punishment not only from invaders but also from its own govt, Tsars and Stalin - punishment that we have not been accustomed to in the west since the dark ages.  ie:  We need to take into account the Russian character which is not merely an eastern version of our liberal democratic outlook. 

Nobody thinks that the Russian people are going to rise up against Putin.  Nobody thinks the Russians are wimps.  But Russians also have a history of throwing in the towel when it's had too much:

• Russo-Japanese War
• WW1
• Afghanistan
• Warsaw Pact breaking away from Soviet Union
• Breakup of the Soviet Union itself
• Chechnya (for a while)
• Ukraine 2015 (it backed off big time)

It also didn't challenge NATO's moves in the Balkans in any direct way, nor did it attempt any military action against NATO expansion.

In fact, Russia's only historical victory against an significantly armed opponent in the last 100 years is WW2.  Granted it was a BIG victory, but it was also the only war they fought that had an existential threat to European Russia.  I don't think the two are unrelated.

Then add to this the coup over the Tzar, multiple coups inside of the Soviet Union, the 1991 coup against Gorbachev, the attempted coup in 1993, and probably at least 1 significant coup against Putin in 2014 (that failed, of course).

None of these coups happened during happy times, they happened when poop was hitting the fan.  Like it is now.

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

2) Putin has not simply survived but flourished in the last 25+ years.  We should be very leery of claims that he will easily be displaced. 

Putin never, ever went "all in" on a gamble until now, so the past history isn't an apples to apples comparison.  Up until now Putin always made sure he could get out of the situation he got himself into, preserving plenty of strength to keep him afloat after.  This time he committed Russia to a regime threatening situation with no Plan B.  There is no possibility of "deescalation" that gives him a win.

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

However, if he is not removed, he will keep this thing going until he gets a "victory" even if it's only something he can spin for his own audience. 

It's not up to Putin.  That's the problem with his "all in" gamble he made.  Ukraine has the final say over whether the war ends or not.  The West led sanctions determine if Russia's economy is allowed to function.

You might think that Putin can keep a war going forever with an economy that is going down the toilet, but you have a tall order in front of you to make that case.  The Soviet Union collapsed under far less immediate stress than what has been caused to Russia right now.  The Russian people haven't had time to figure that out yet, but they will.  While an upset populace might not directly topple Putin, coup plotters will no doubt be bolder and more plentiful if there's unrest.  Many powerful people will not want to risk going down with the Putin ship and seek to oust him.  This is the part of Russian history you seem to not know about.

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

3) China and other emerging powers like India, Iran and also ME countries are already hedging their bets as they see big advantages in displacing the USD as the world reserve currency and creating a new power axis around China which they see as the future world dominator. 

I've been hearing these talking points for 20 years or more.  It's not happened and this war is not going to be what pushes it in that direction.  While it's not exactly a conspiracy theory tin hat sort of thing to think will happen, it's not really grounded in reality either.  Plus, what does this have to do with Russia's survival?

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

These nations are, and will continue, propping up Russia so long as they see hope for their own agendas.  (And AFAIK, Europe is still (shockingly) paying Russia billlions for gas and oil imports.)

Nobody is interested in propping up Russia at their own expense.  Not even China.  They'll do it only to the extent they feel it is in their best interests.  Which is why Europe is still paying Russia for the gas and oil it imports.  But it is also looking to move away from it as fast as possible, so the oil and gas payments to Russia right now are at a high water mark and will decline from here on out.

Then there's the point that Russia has less to spend its money on than it did before.  Russia was highly dependent upon imports for just about everything it does, so having a lot of money sitting around in the bank doesn't help its economy much.  Plus, the war expenses that Russia has are massive.  Ukraine estimates it is spending $10b a month, what do you think Russia is spending?  And what is the bill going to be for rebuilding its shattered military?

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

I may very well be wrong about this going on into May, June etc.  But, my point is that academics have been predicting since February that this will all be over very soon and that Russia will "lose" without explaining what "win" or "lose" actually looks like in the big picture.

Actually, most of the academics predicted Russia would win a quick and fairly painless war.  They predicted Russia would walk away with a win without explaining how it was going to achieve it.  Since then they've shifted to the same sort of talk you have.  The people saying that Russia has already lost the war, or will lose it soon, are still voices in the wilderness.

As for defining how Russia will "lose" this war, it's simple... Russia went in with certain expectations for what it would gain vs. lose.  It has achieved none of its real goals nor any of its fictional goals, yet the costs of this war are exponentially higher than it expected. 

Russia has already lost the war.  Huge loss.  There is no coming back from this after taking Mariupol or even securing the rest of Donetsk.  It's already lost.  Done.  Lost.

Aside from losing this war already (I mentioned that, right?), they have lost the peace as well.  Russia's image as a big-bad-boy is gone.  They are seen as a humiliated, murderous, pack of animals led by a Fascist dictator who cares nothing for Human life.  NATO is stronger than ever and will likely gain membership from this.  The EU is (for now) more unified than it has been since before Brexit even.  All the decades of courting foreign investment just got thrown into the dumpster.  The decades of buying influence to promote Russia's agenda is greatly diminished.  It's spy masters and enablers are being directly countered.  And all of the multitude of problems facing Russia before this conflict have just gotten a lot worse.

Did I mention Russia has ALREADY LOST THIS WAR?

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

We are now two months past February and there is no end in sight. 

Sure there is an end in sight.  You just aren't looking for one so you don't see it.

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Am not trying to argue as to who was right or wrong with their February predictions.  We can chat indefinitely about military battles being won.  Am simply trying to different viewpoint re what may potentially be happening regarding the big picture war.  

So has everybody who has challenged your points that you didn't bother to respond to.

Steve

[sross112]

So round one is pretty much called in the favor of Ukraine unless something that truly amazes all of us happens and everyone is wrong. How it exactly plays out we still aren't sure. Does the RA make a Zitadel lunge on a Wacht Am Rhein budget and then the remnants get slowly pushed out of Ukraine? Does the RA decide it would be fruitless to waste more manpower and machines and switch over to the defensive and get ground to nothing? Do they decide that it is lost for now and fight a tentative delaying action and get slowly pushed out while trying to bleed the UA as much as possible?

Once they are pushed out I don't see the UA pursuing them into Russia. That just turns the tables, gives up their strengths and hands the advantage to the RA. So a stalemate/self-imposed DMZ goes into effect with most everything pulled out of arty range along the frontier, probably for both sides as it makes no sense to let the other side pound on you incessantly. 

So how does Russia do a round two? The war won't end until both sides agree that it is over and again the Ukraine is not going to invade and conquer Russia. So a stalemate at the border.

The UA will benefit from western support in continued equipment and help, the RA is pretty much on it's own. I could see a limited amount of new techy stuff from China but I don't think the Russians will have the money to buy very much and the Chinese won't probably want to sell them a whole lot with the world opinions as they are. But we can assume that there will be some of that.

It has been pointed out that Russia doesn't currently have and won't be able to conjure the ability to produce high tech weaponry due to sanctions. So no chance of them coming back with a fleet of T-14's and Terminators covered by all sorts of other sophisticated stuff. What options would they have?

What if they go low tech? The economy won't support huge expenditures for fancy stuff, but Putin can spin the situation any way he wants. Rally the motherland for war with the nazis. Go back more in line with the Soviet system and seize the arms industry "for the people". Pull those thousands of tanks out of storage and start refurbishing everything. Conscript in a couple million troops. They have the low tech ability to produce the rifles, grenades, bombs, ordnance and all the other pre-microchip stuff. 

Again, they can wait the two or three years or whatever it takes before initiating round 2. It doesn't have to be right away and well, it can't be right away. Build up a powerful 1985-1990ish force with traditional concept for the RA that quantity has a quality of it's own. In the meantime they get to purge the officer corps and have time to get commanders and troops into the right positions and trained up to an adequate level to conduct old soviet doctrine attacks.

Then when they deem themselves ready they can kick it off. Phase one to the Dnepr, phase two to a Zymotir/Odessa line, phase three the rest. 

How does Ukraine defeat that? I know the occupation will be long and bloody but under the Soviet era regime that Putin has instituted the Soviet era repression tactics come back too. So no uprising in the motherland would be tolerated and definitely nothing in occupied territories. Iron curtain goes back up on the borders and the insurgency would only last so long. Might cost the RA a million men, but I bet Putin is willing to pay that sort of a price.

Thoughts?