How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[womble]

3 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

This war won't go away by winning one or two battles. 

No, it won't. It may well go away by crushing the Russian economy via sanctions though. Much more likely via that route than via the military one. The RF-actually-in-Ukraine problem does seem tractable to "kinetic" solutions, though. Much more so than the general Russian outlook and attitude.

[Aragorn2002]

1 hour ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

@Haiduk

Apparently, more and more pictures are turning up since a few days with UA soldiers wearing green armbands? Any idea what that means?

Might be a kind of password, to identify friend and foe. The Spetsnaz boys will be around, I think.

Edited April 13, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Der Zeitgeist]

12 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Quite worrying actually. I know the dutch army did sent most of it's Stingers and Panzerfausts to Ukraine and I suspect Germany did the same. And the number of Russian tanks still available also worries me. Not all of them may be runners and not all of them may have a crew but it still means the Russians aren't done yet.

I wonder how many Javelins Ukraine actually uses in combat. It's notable that there are very few videos of them getting fired. I think I've seen only one or two during the entire war so far.

[Der Zeitgeist]

11 minutes ago, Taranis said:

Note guys, that it is a French bulletproof vest (rather old model)

Yes, I still remember the French troops wearing those in Bosnia during UNPROFOR.

[Kraft]

In celebration of the 500th visually confirmed Russian MBT going *pop* in Ukraine _{*(or being damaged, abandoned, captured)} 
I have a nice calculator to share with which you can predict Russia running out of Tanks assuming an endless stream of conscripts.

Features include a nice graph and some funky sliders like

Adjustment for losses data

Predicted future war intensity

Russian tanks at start of war

Russian tanks in storage

Usable tanks in storage

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by Kraft

[Aragorn2002]

21 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

I wonder how many Javelins Ukraine actually uses in combat. It's notable that there are very few videos of them getting fired. I think I've seen only one or two during the entire war so far.

After the Russians are defeated we're going to count how many tanks and other vehicles are destroyed by Javelins, Panzerfausts etc. That should be fun.

[Huba]

3 hours ago, Combatintman said:

We call them assessments in the trade and yes it is possible to achieve surprise.  There will always be gaps in coverage and there is the issue of sorting out the wheat from the chaff and then getting that recognized picture to the people who need the information.  Additionally the vehicles do not necessarily have to start moving to be able to work out the Courses of Action available.  It is fairly easy to narrow down the courses of action using processes such Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) and once you narrow those down, you can task your ISR to look into areas where they might travel and when they might travel through their areas.  Ideally you cover areas where the enemy has to make a decision, called a Decision Point in the trade and if you get it right, you end up well ahead of the enemy's' Decision-Action cycle which allows you to trigger counter actions or strikes as necessary.

This is the kind of answer I hoped for. So the bottom line is that's unlikely for  Russians to mix things up to a degree that would confuse the Ukrainian defense at this point, given apparent Ukrainian intelligence advantage. Even more so in a spirit of reversed Kursk.

Edited April 13, 2022 by Huba

[TheVulture]

28 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

I wonder how many Javelins Ukraine actually uses in combat. It's notable that there are very few videos of them getting fired. I think I've seen only one or two during the entire war so far.

That might be a function of who has them though. We're not seeing very much footage from regular Ukraine army: it's mostly territorial defence units units putting videos up. So maybe it's just that the javelins have been sent to army units (who might be expected to take better care of the CLUs, whike TD units have received more of the one shot AT weapons. 

[danfrodo]

40 minutes ago, womble said:

No, it won't. It may well go away by crushing the Russian economy via sanctions though. Much more likely via that route than via the military one. The RF-actually-in-Ukraine problem does seem tractable to "kinetic" solutions, though. Much more so than the general Russian outlook and attitude.

This seems right to me also, Womble.  I just went through (my) last night's posts and see folks talking about massive Russian forces that could be deployed.  Yes, could happen over time.  But the economic disruption would be heavy and it would take months.  Over those months the Ukrainians as getting stronger also, and have much of the world helping them.  How does Russia pay for all this while its economy is being dragged down by sanctions?  And RU forces will be at an increasing technology disadvantage over time due to lack of trade.

When the Russian public starts to see real shortages, even heavier inflation, their sons dragged off to war, will they still support this mess?  And if they don't, as I've said before it all comes down to "will the soldiers shoot?" -- against thousands of protestors in the streets.  If they shoot, Putin hangs on to power.  If they don't, he hangs on a lamp post.

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, panzermartin said:

It wasn't a german initiative to push things in the East and ignite the mess we are in today.

Er, isn't the lesson here that RUSSIA dragged the West into this mess?  The fantasy that NATO expansion is responsible for this mess has been so totally debunked it makes my head hurt to even think about it any more.   And if NATO hadn't expanded eastward the EU would be short at least 3 member states, if not 5, by now.

If anything is to blame for Russia's aggression westward it is the EU's expansion eastward, which the United States had nothing to do with and UK was dragged into it kicking and screaming (and left the EU kicking and screaming, I might add). 

Russia is vastly more threatened by the EU than NATO.

4 hours ago, panzermartin said:

And if it's WW3, Europe will pay the price again and the ones that lead the situation across the Atlantic will once again thrive over our ruins. Does Germany really want to get dragged by US and UK, the centuries old imperialists that they were always at war with and burned their cities to the ground? And if this happens , they will have to first clear from their memory the last time they marched eastwards

Last time I checked Germany started WW2 and the United States tried desperately to avoid being entangled in it, only going to war after Germany declared war on it (not the other way around).

So I think it might be you that needs to clear up some memory issues.

Steve

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, DesertFox said:

Absolutely!

 

 

And on the topic of how badly Russia has lost the "big picture".  On all this let's say that Russia somehow manages to defeat Ukraine.  Not some poncy re-definition but actually take the whole country installs a puppet government and holds victory parade in May '23 [aside: the odds of this happening are so extremely low that we are in "alien virus wipes out UA" type scenarios, but let's just play along].  So what?

- Russia gets Ukraine and all its oil, gas and wheat...all of which are a small fraction of what Russia already has, but it is technically in the plus column.  Of course to access all that you need a functioning Ukraine, so who is paying to re-build all the infrastructure the Russians blew up in order to gain all said cool stuff?

- Russian has demonstrated the exact opposite of what they need to the world.  The great Russian bear nearly bled out taking a single country in its near abroad, leaving destroyed and abandoned equipment and bodies all over the place.  It looks weaker than we thought going in even if Ukraine surrenders right now...that part is done.

- Geopolitically it has made its enemies stronger (see above). If someone told me Sweden and Finland were going to be seriously be moving to join NATO six months ago, I would have laughed them out of the room.  Hell, we heard rumours of this 6 weeks ago and were not really thinking they were serious.  So NATO is bigger, more unified and better funded - really not seeing the master plan here.

- Geopolitically, it makes Russia much weaker.  Those sanctions are not going to be forgotten in a year. In fact I doubt the investigation into the mass war crimes from this war will be over in a year.  You wanna talk stalemate, no western politician is going to even hint at "re-normalization with Russia" for maybe a decade. So that means that Russia has to pivot heavily to people who will trade with them...enter the Chinese.  The Chinese may very well send Russia support but it is a poison pill.  China wants Russian resources...cheap.  And a weakened Russia who can only trade with a narrow market is extremely vulnerable and desperate.  They will have to live with what they can get from China price-wise because they literally have no other options than "leave it in the ground and become a third world nation".  And even if it isn't China, it will be India then who sets the conditions but that gets more complicated. 

- Internally it makes Russia much weaker.  Putin is going to have to spend billions on the wave of resentment and pushback that is likely coming his way from all the Russians that do not buy off on this whole thing, and even if that is only 17 percent that is 24+ million people that are going to be extremely agitated that Putin has to deal with.  Being an autocrat and creating a closed society takes money, ask North Korea.  So all that funding to counter backlash is going away from "other things", but you cannot simply cut all social programs and infrastructure funding, or that percentage goes up.  So what takes the hit?  The Russian military is the most likely candidate.  Everything but internal security will be on shaky ground, while being run by a corrupt administration.

So here I do agree with Steve, Russia has already lost this war.  It is just a matter of determining what that loss looks like.  Worse, Russia has likely already lost its next war and does not even know it yet.

Edited April 13, 2022 by The_Capt

[Aragorn2002]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And on the topic of how badly Russia has lost the "big picture".  On all this let's say that Russia somehow manages to defeat Ukraine.  Not some poncy re-definition but actually take the whole country installs a puppet government and holds victory parade in May '23 [aside: the odds of this happening are so extremely low that we are in "alien virus wipes out UA" type scenarios, but let's just play along].  So what?

- Russia get Ukraine and all its oil, gas and wheat...all of which are a small fraction of what Russia already has, but it is technically in the plus column.  Of course to access all that you need a functioning Ukraine, so who is paying to re-build all the infrastructure the Russians blew up in order to gain all said cool stuff?

- Russian has demonstrated the exact opposite of what they need to the world.  The great Russian bear nearly bled out taking a single country in it near abroad, leaving destroyed and abandoned equipment and bodies all over the place.  It looks weaker than we thought going in if Ukraine surrenders right now...that part is done.

- Geopolitically it has made its enemies stronger (see above). If someone told me Sweden and Finland were going to be seriously be moving to joint NATO six months ago, I would have laughed them out of the room.  Hell, we heard rumours of this 6 weeks ago and were not really thinking they were serious.  So NATO is bigger, more unified and better funded - really not seeing the master plan here.

- Geopolitically, it makes Russia much weaker.  Those sanctions are not going to be forgotten in a year. In fact I doubt the investigation into the mass war crimes from this war will be over in a year.  You wanna talk stalemate, no western politician is going to even hint at "re-normalization with Russia" for maybe a decade. So that means that Russia has to pivot heavily to people who will trade with them...enter the Chinese.  The Chinese may very well send Russia support but it is a poison pill.  China wants Russian resources...cheap.  And a weakened Russia who can only trade with a narrow market is extremely vulnerable and desperate.  They will have to live with what they can get from China price-wise because they literally have no other options than "leave it in the ground and become a third world nation".  And even if it isn't China, it will be India then who sets the conditions but that gets more complicated. 

- Internally it makes Russia much weaker.  Putin is going to have to spend billions on the wave of resentment and pushback that is likely coming his way from all the Russians that do not buy off on this whole thing, and even if that is only 17 percent that is 24+ million people that are going to be extremely agitated that Putin has to deal with.  Being an autocrat and creating a closed society takes money, ask North Korea.  So all that funding to counter backlash is going away from "other things", but you cannot simply cut all social programs and infrastructure funding, or that percentage goes up.  So what takes the hit?  The Russian military is the most likely candidate.  Everything but internal security will be on shaky ground, while being run by a corrupt administration.

So here I do agree with Steve, Russia has already lost this war.  It is just a matter of determining what that loss looks like.  Worse, Russia has likely already lost its next war and does not even know it yet.

There's another factor as well. With Europe FINALLY re-arming itself and doing what it should have done a long time ago for it's own defence (hopefully against an impoverished and weakened, but no doubt still dangerous Russia), the US can continue to concentrate more on the Chinese. Personally I not only would like to see Europe stronger, but I would also like to see the US, our only reliable ally, to remain world power number 1. In the past month we once more have been reminded how small the number of countries is that really value freedom and democracy. 

[acrashb]

22 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

How does Russia pay for all this while its economy is being dragged down by sanctions?

The same way Canada and other nations pay for things they can't afford: deficit spending and, down the road, higher taxation (either in tax rates or inflation).

Who will lend Russia the money?  China, maybe.

The real bite of sanctions is in exclusion from items needed that aren't domestically produced.  The rest of the economy takes a real hit when and if Europe weens itself off of Russian energy products.

20 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So what takes the hit?  The Russian military is the most likely candidate.

I think they can borrow against resources as above.  If they default, China owns some Russian infrastructure - but if Putin et al can kick that can down the road, they will.

Edited April 13, 2022 by acrashb

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, db_zero said:

Javelin/Stinger inventory and production estimates.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-united-states-run-out-javelins-russia-runs-out-tanks

Interesting article.

The good news for NATO is that every weapon they send into Ukraine that scores a hit on a Russian vehicle is one less Russian vehicle that could theoretically threaten NATO later.

I haven't read the article completely, so might have been taken into account, but there's a lot of other ways that Russia is losing armored vehicles.  Artillery has probably claimed more than anything else.  Drones are accounting for a decent number as well.  Standard non-guided AT weapons are still claiming kills in this war too.  We've seen some vehicle on vehicle kills, including some great BTR-4 camera footage of taking out all sorts of stuff including tanks.  Then there's losses to non-combat related events, such as panic abandonment, falling off bridges, bogged, etc.

The armored vehicles that are in mothballs have been discussed here before.  They are relevant, but not many are going to see combat in this war due to maintenance problems and parts cannibalization.  And they aren't likely to be modernized either.

Then we have to take into account that combat ineffectiveness is what you shoot for when you go to war, not total annihilation.  Russia is losing much of its best equipment in this war and is on track to being combat ineffective.  I think the dwindling supplies of ATGMs and anti-air missiles is not of immediate concern.

Steve

[db_zero]

US officials are meeting with defense industry leaders to discuss long range plans to produce more weapons. 
 

Supply chain issues and lack of skilled labor will also be discussed. 
 

Zelinsky asked for 2000 Javelin’s a week and based on estimates of inventory and production times it looks like 2000 a month isn’t going to happen.

I’ve seen a few videos where about every other soldier had an AT weapon and I’ve heard estimates of the AT weapon to soldier ratio that sounded crazy. 
 

Edited April 13, 2022 by db_zero

[The_MonkeyKing]

 

Would Ukraine be able to receive HIMARS or similar? 

[danfrodo]

yes, to all of these new posts.  It all boils down to Putin, through his genius, has managed to accomplish everything that he did NOT want.  Expanded NATO, stronger NATO, Russian weakness made glaringly obvious, sanctions, worthless ruble, Zelensky is a super popular hero, Russia-curious folks in Ukraine now ~completely on side of Ukraine independence, and Russia is a (nearly) worldwide pariah, and at the mercy of whatever China will pay for it's fossil fuels once Europe weans itself.

Was totally worth it, Putin says, as he doubles down yet again.

[danfrodo]

2 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

 

Would Ukraine be able to receive HIMARS or similar? 

Once again it's like Tolkien: hero from the unlikeliest of places....  Ukrainian hobbit saves a nation of 44 million from enslavement and endless oppression (with a little help from his ATGM & artillery wielding friends)

[Battlefront.com]

16 minutes ago, acrashb said:

The same way Canada and other nations pay for things they can't afford: deficit spending and, down the road, higher taxation (either in tax rates or inflation).

Who will lend Russia the money?  China, maybe.

I think they can borrow against resources as above.  If they default, China owns some Russian infrastructure - but if Putin et al can kick that can down the road, they will.

All this is possible, of course.  But the amount of income that Russia has been cut off from is problematic to say the least.  Loans from China aren't going to be enough to combat this long term.  Especially because we can be pretty sure the money gained will not be used efficiently or effectively (neither are Russia's strong suits).

Russia's domestic spending per capita is low compared to other countries and the "kick the can down the road" issues (like that railroad bridge) have been showing signs of causing problems for the Russian state.  Worse, employment is going to suffer as so many of the jobs that the sanctions have squashed are not coming back any time soon.  This means compounding year over year effects are going to make things increasingly miserable over time.

Here's an informative chart:

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/russia/annual-household-income-per-capita

The stability of Putin's regime has rested solidly on increasing the material quality of life of the average Russian.  This has been under threat since 2014 (see chart above).  Russians seem to be pretty easily made to feel better by even modest improvements, so the recover from 2016 to 2017 mattered even though it was still far from the high of 2013.  But guess what 2022 is going to look like?  Not better than 2021 that's for sure.

This chart is also helpful to those who still think that the 2014/2015 sanctions haven't hurt Russia.  They have.  What they didn't do was change Putin's behavior in a positive way.  That should be no surprise.

One theory out there is that the reason why Putin attacked now is in part due to the cumulative negative impacts of the 2014/2015 sanctions.  Putin projected out a few years and wasn't liking what he saw and figured it was now or never.  Akin to the decision by the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor.  Russians are good at math, so there's some legs to this theory IMHO.

Russia is not going to borrow its way out of problems that it couldn't work its way out of prior to this war.

Steve

[danfrodo]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

All this is possible, of course.  But the amount of income that Russia has been cut off from is problematic to say the least.

Russia's domestic spending per capita is low compared to other countries and the "kick the can down the road" issues (like that railroad bridge) have been showing signs of causing problems for the Russian state.  Worse, employment is going to suffer as so many of the jobs that the sanctions have squashed are not coming back any time soon.  This means compounding year over year effects are going to make things increasingly miserable over time.

Here's an informative chart:

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/russia/annual-household-income-per-capita

The stability of Putin's regime has rested solidly on increasing the material quality of life of the average Russian.  This has been under threat since 2014 (see chart above).  Russians seem to be pretty easily made to feel better by even modest improvements, so the recover from 2016 to 2017 mattered even though it was still far from the high of 2013.  But guess what 2022 is going to look like?  Not better than 2021 that's for sure.

This chart is also helpful to those who still think that the 2014/2015 sanctions haven't hurt Russia.  They have.  What they didn't do was change Putin's behavior in a positive way.  That should be no surprise.

One theory out there is that the reason why Putin attacked now is in part due to the cumulative negative impacts of the 2014/2015 sanctions.  Putin projected out a few years and wasn't liking what he saw and figured it was now or never.  Akin to the decision by the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor.  Russians are good at math, so there's some legs to this theory IMHO.

Steve

Putin's pearl harbor.... yeah, makes sense.  Instead of trying to un-do his stupid 2014 mess via some peaceful compromises he doubles down.  And economically he's trying to do this war despite sanctions and coming off a global pandemic that already made a big mess in global supply chains.  And during spring rasputitsa -- once again his genius is like a blinding light to us mere mortals.

[DesertFox]

28 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

There's another factor as well. With Europe FINALLY re-arming itself and doing what it should have done a long time ago for it's own defence (hopefully against an impoverished and weakened, but no doubt still dangerous Russia), the US can continue to concentrate more on the Chinese. Personally I not only would like to see Europe stronger, but I would also like to see the US, our only reliable ally, to remain world power number 1. In the past month we once more have been reminded how small the number of countries is that really value freedom and democracy. 

+1 (ran out of likes)

[Aragorn2002]

1 minute ago, DesertFox said:

+1 (ran out of likes)

You owe me one, DesertFox

[Aragorn2002]

21 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

yes, to all of these new posts.  It all boils down to Putin, through his genius, has managed to accomplish everything that he did NOT want.  Expanded NATO, stronger NATO, Russian weakness made glaringly obvious, sanctions, worthless ruble, Zelensky is a super popular hero, Russia-curious folks in Ukraine now ~completely on side of Ukraine independence, and Russia is a (nearly) worldwide pariah, and at the mercy of whatever China will pay for it's fossil fuels once Europe weans itself.

Was totally worth it, Putin says, as he doubles down yet again.

Yeah, it's a fact. He is as smart as he looks.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

6 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Perhaps everybody should realize that the survival and future of the EU is for a large part dependent on the German economy AND German money. Without a strong German economy, no EU.  It's bitter, but we need Russian gas for a couple of years more. Those politically responsible for this outrage should be held responsible though. This is the legacy of Merkel.

I would like to add that the gas infrastructure from the USSR to the west (or what has become the west in the meantime) predates all current and recent politicians (we´re talking late 1960s).

The attached corruption is however more recent (russian top jobs for former German and Austrian polticians is more of a Putin era thing).

If somebody can pull off a genuine Energiewende, it´s the Germans. It will be well invested money since everybody will have to wean themselves off fossil fuels anyway.

This is of course a major undertaking and will take years, regardless of moralistic huffing and puffing from countries who (currently) have easier access to energy .

[sburke]

Just now, Aragorn2002 said:

Yeah, it's a fact. He is as smart as he looks.

as my father used to say.  "Steven, you aren't as dumb as you look.  But then nobody could be that dumb."