How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Cederic]

55 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Everyone is still hung up on these exceedingly fine distinctions in how we kill Russians

The single biggest lesson I took from Clausewitz: Killing Russians isn't the point.

Imposing the will of Ukraine on Russia and the Russian invaders is what matters. Being able to target Sevastopol and put it beyond military use has far higher utility than merely killing Russians.

While many Ukrainians will have no qualms about killing every Russian in Ukraine, it benefits them little unless Russia withdraws. A tool that makes Russian presence untenable damages Russian interests far more than killing a few more thousand poor rural Russians.

That's why the range matters, why it changes the nature of the threat to Russia. The Russian ship movements to the Baltic show that they are actually scared, and while it's amusing to see such cowardice from the supposedly strong motherland that fear will influence their decisions and reactions to a change in circumstances.

This doesn't mean a full range HIMARS capability shouldn't be provided to Ukraine, but it does need proper thought, risk analysis and a conscious decision to provoke and accept those associated risks.

[FancyCat]

Someone else had mentioned this, but I forget who or where I saw it, one way of preventing escalation is slowly and cautiously raising the aid being given to Ukraine, instead of the whole farmhouse, do it little by little, instead of Russia being hugely alarmed at the balance of war shifting in one set of equipment, more of a slow boil that Russia can sort of hope does not continue, and can try and prevent occurring and hope it can render a battlefield victory due to NATO not giving everything it could. 

Its difficult to predict what Russia may have done in the other scenario but it's worth considering that Russia needs to balance threatening nuclear/general war with NATO for involving itself in the conflict and the feasibility of NATO breaking apart due to worry and fear/the world siding with Russia. 

[LongLeftFlank]

6 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, the Belarus decision to stay out of the war (directly) is not being revisited in any meaningful way.  This recent announcement is a paper pushing thing with no practical meaning.  It's something for Russian audiences, probably, and to keep Ukrainian troops covering the border.

I think Lukashenko convinced Putin months ago that pushing him to go to war against Ukraine would mean Belarus collapses, leaving Russia without an ally and giving the Russian people the wrong idea of what to do with dictators.

Belarus is as likely to attack Ukraine as Poland is.

Steve

Yes, this is my take too.

Lukashenko is pursuing a Franco strategy, where sure, he'll join Hitler's crusade against Bolshevism but he simply needs the following materials first to modernize the Spanish army, e.g. an entire year's production of PZIVs and SfH150mm howitzers. Oh, and the entire tungsten supply.

...But in the meantime, if you want to recruit some annoying Spanish fascist wingnuts to spend the winter in the Volkhov swamps, sure, fill yer jackboots mate!

Edited May 27, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[danfrodo]

17 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Yes, this is my take too.

Lukashenko is pursuing a Franco strategy, where sure, he'll join Hitler's crusade against Bolshevism but he simply needs the following materials first to modernize the Spanish army, e.g. an entire year's production of PZIVs and SfH150mm howitzers. Oh, and the entire tungsten supply.

...But in the meantime, if you want to recruit some annoying Spanish fascist wingnuts to spend the winter in the Volkhov swamps, sure, fill yer jackboots mate!

LLF, that is a most excellent post.  Had me grinning ear to ear.  And so perfectly fits current situation so far w Belarus.

So did Franco really do that? 

[LongLeftFlank]

5 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:

If the situation in Ukraine was not so tragic some of the stuff that has been coming from Russian television would be downright hilarious. Almost like something from a Saturday night sketch show. Here is another example.

 

Not just in Russia, sadly.

It's painful to watch Naked Capitalism's Yves Smith, whose Old Left blog I used to read with great interest even though I am no leftie, contort herself into mental knots trying to make sense of this parallel universe where Russia are the Good Guys and could steamroll the 'nazis' any time they like, if only it wasn't for those evil NATO meddling kids....

Some of the same topsy turvy pops up over on The American Conservative (not just the Buchanan isolationists, who are at least consistent), and in the comment section of Pat Lang's blog.

[billbindc]

21 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/26/biden-white-house-secret-planning-helped-ukraine-counter-russia/

 

"Germany was a reluctant but essential ally, and the Biden administration made a controversial decision last summer that was probably crucial in gaining German support against Russia. Biden gave Germany a pass on an initial round of sanctions against a company building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in exchange for a pledge from Chancellor Angela Merkel that if Russia invaded, Nord Stream 2 would be scrapped. When the invasion came, Merkel was gone but her successor, Olaf Scholz, kept the promise."

 

[LongLeftFlank]

7 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

LLF, that is a most excellent post.  Had me grinning ear to ear.  And so perfectly fits current situation so far w Belarus.

So did Franco really do that? 

Yup.

https://mobile.coconuttimes.com/articles/Remembering-WWII/WORSE-THAN-A-VISIT-TO-THE-DENTIST

 

[Chibot Mk IX]

a little bit OT

The war approaches its 3rd month. In a Parallel Universes (one of the battlefront universes) the RuAF has almost reached Carpathian Mountains. (I am playing the scenario interdiction)  

 

[sburke]

hows that for a headline after 3 months?

Will Ukraine Invade Russia After Pushing Putin's Forces Back? (msn.com)

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Someone else had mentioned this, but I forget who or where I saw it, one way of preventing escalation is slowly and cautiously raising the aid being given to Ukraine, instead of the whole farmhouse, do it little by little, instead of Russia being hugely alarmed at the balance of war shifting in one set of equipment, more of a slow boil that Russia can sort of hope does not continue, and can try and prevent occurring and hope it can render a battlefield victory due to NATO not giving everything it could. 

I am glad you brought this back up again.  Yes, this was discussed here quite a while ago, perhaps prompted by someone outside saying something smart.  But for me, I know I pointed out that this is exactly what Russia and China does to the West all the f'n time.  And it works.  It works really well.  So I'm glad to see that the West is playing the same game because, as I said, it works really well

2 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Its difficult to predict what Russia may have done in the other scenario but it's worth considering that Russia needs to balance threatening nuclear/general war with NATO for involving itself in the conflict and the feasibility of NATO breaking apart due to worry and fear/the world siding with Russia. 

The other benefit of incremental escalation is that you more chances to assess where the other side is at in terms of vulnerabilities and resolve.  You have the ability to better gauge where tipping points might be.  Here's an example.

Let's look at the first week of the war when Russia was a LOT stronger then and had not proven itself totally inept (inept, yes, but not totally ).  What if NATO provided Ukraine with a capability to blow up Sevastopol harbor in the first week of the war.  What might Russia have been able to do then that it might not be able to do today?  I don't know, but they had more options back then for sure.

I think the best use of this sort of ranged capability is to use it when Russia is firmly on the ropes.  Use it to send a message that if they think it's bad at that point, it will get worse if they keep the war going.

Another scenario is that things don't go so well for Ukraine this summer and they need to even the score somehow.

Either scenario, or any number of other ones, can be assessed easier with the incremental escalation approach.

Which is to say, I am completely in favor of providing Ukraine with new and improved capabilities.  PzH 2000 and improved MRLS capabilities are absolutely something that needs to get onto the battlefield ASAP.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, billbindc said:

"Germany was a reluctant but essential ally, and the Biden administration made a controversial decision last summer that was probably crucial in gaining German support against Russia. Biden gave Germany a pass on an initial round of sanctions against a company building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in exchange for a pledge from Chancellor Angela Merkel that if Russia invaded, Nord Stream 2 would be scrapped. When the invasion came, Merkel was gone but her successor, Olaf Scholz, kept the promise."

Holy crap.  So one of the US right wing's biggest and most cherished talking points to bash Biden's leadership is, in fact, one of the most brilliant acts of statecraft seen this century?  Well, it does explain a few things.  Namely, why the US gave Nord Stream 2 a pass and why Germany agreed to kill it.

It was also clear that Ukraine had been provided with some pretty detailed intel on what the Russians were doing.  Now we have some details about that too:

Quote

U.S. intelligence provided Ukraine with a preview of Putin’s battle plan. Though Russia had surrounded Ukraine with 150,000 troops, Putin’s real strategy was a lightning, decapitating strike on Kyiv by a relatively small group of elite special forces. The Russians planned to seize Antonov Airport in Hostomel, west of the capital, and then use it to quickly pump troops into Kyiv.

The Ukrainians knew the Russians were coming. Burns had secretly traveled to Kyiv in January to brief Zelensky on the Russian plan, according to two knowledgeable officials. The Ukrainians used the U.S. intelligence to devastate the attacking force at Hostomel, in what may turn out to be the decisive battle of the war. “The Russians had no Plan B,” explained Marek Menkiszak, a Polish intelligence analyst with the Centre for Eastern Studies in Warsaw.

The article provides more details about some things that were apparent to anybody who knows a thing about logistics, not to mention political logistics.  For example:

Quote

NATO military planning accelerated along with the diplomacy. Air Force Gen. Tod Wolters, the NATO commander, told me that his colleagues began preparing in December and January the “ground lines of communication” that would allow rapid shipment of arms into Ukraine. They studied entry points for supplies and other practical details. This weapons pipeline delivered Stinger and Javelin missiles before the invasion began Feb. 24 and has transferred huge numbers of heavier weapons since then.

The fast rush of weapons into Ukraine at that scale clearly showed that the US had a plan in place well ahead of time.  Lots of other examples of that, such as units being moved into place in the weeks ahead of the invasion. 

Wow.  Just... wow.

I am absolutely no fan of Biden or his handling of the moment we were in last year.  My list of things to gripe about is pretty long.  But before this war started I said that Biden's release of intel in realtime was one of the true genius moments of any US President in my lifetime, or perhaps in my parents' lifetime.  Now this.  I'm f'n shocked.

And of course the right will give him no credit for this at all.  Objectivity isn't really the point in politics, is it?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

hows that for a headline after 3 months?

Will Ukraine Invade Russia After Pushing Putin's Forces Back? (msn.com)

Good read.  This part in particular struck my fancy:

Quote

"The Ukrainians don't need to go to Russia to show they can beat the Russians. They've been doing it pretty well so far."

"I think some form of incursion into Russia would have to be something that had a very significant military payoff for Ukraine to do it," added Ryan, an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

This is why I don't think even Sevastopol is worth the risk of attacking.  Something far more effective would be taking out the rail and road infrastructure heading into Ukraine in the Kharkiv area.  That would be worth doing because it has the potential for causing major difficulties for Russian forces fighting in Ukraine.  Sevastopol?  Russia's navy is effectively out of the war.  It has to hide or risk being sunk by existing capabilities, not to mention what will happen when Harpoons show up.  Ukraine's morale is not in need of an ego boost, and that's about all hitting Sevastopol does in terms of winning the war against Russia.

Steve

[billbindc]

41 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Holy crap.  So one of the US right wing's biggest and most cherished talking points to bash Biden's leadership is, in fact, one of the most brilliant acts of statecraft seen this century?  Well, it does explain a few things.  Namely, why the US gave Nord Stream 2 a pass and why Germany agreed to kill it.

It was also clear that Ukraine had been provided with some pretty detailed intel on what the Russians were doing.  Now we have some details about that too:

The article provides more details about some things that were apparent to anybody who knows a thing about logistics, not to mention political logistics.  For example:

The fast rush of weapons into Ukraine at that scale clearly showed that the US had a plan in place well ahead of time.  Lots of other examples of that, such as units being moved into place in the weeks ahead of the invasion. 

Wow.  Just... wow.

I am absolutely no fan of Biden or his handling of the moment we were in last year.  My list of things to gripe about is pretty long.  But before this war started I said that Biden's release of intel in realtime was one of the true genius moments of any US President in my lifetime, or perhaps in my parents' lifetime.  Now this.  I'm f'n shocked.

And of course the right will give him no credit for this at all.  Objectivity isn't really the point in politics, is it?

Steve

I'd been hearing since the end of last year that the Biden folks had been obsessing about and intensely working diplomatic ties regarding a Russian invasion since April of 2021. The article confirms it. That fact puts a lot of fairly shocking developments...not least the way in which the EU countries reacted so decisively...in context. Russia telegraphed the punch and thankfully we had the right people running the show who could take advantage of it.

[FancyCat]

Article on what exactly the HIMARS will do for Ukraine.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/what-himars-rocket-systems-can-and-cant-do-for-ukraine

I think the most important aspect is the slow but steady switching of Ukraine to NATO armaments. That and more firepower is more firepower even if it's not "game changing"

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I'd been hearing since the end of last year that the Biden folks had been obsessing about and intensely working diplomatic ties regarding a Russian invasion since April of 2021. The article confirms it. That fact puts a lot of fairly shocking developments...not least the way in which the EU countries reacted so decisively...in context.

It was clear to me in January that a lot of stuff was going on behind the scenes.  February we were already starting to see proactive activities that were clearly coordinated.  Then the war started and on pretty much day one the diplomatic equivalent of "shock and awe" became very clear.  As impressed as I was about the activities ahead of the invasion, I was definitely shocked and awed by the response.  I was not surprised that the US was the primary reason for it.

14 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Russia telegraphed the punch and thankfully we had the right people running the show who could take advantage of it.

Yes, exactly.  In order to execute an incredibly intricate, intelligent, and consistent diplomatic campaign you have to first have an intricate, intelligent, and consistent foreign policy executed by people who have the chops for it and the backing of the President to push the envelope.  A constant turnover in diplomatic and military leadership, huge gaping vacancies of key posts, denigration of our intel community, and topped off by a lack of a coherent foreign policy (critics would say NO foreign policy) would have produced a very different result.  Germany and France would likely have filled the power vacuum and I think we know what the result of that would have been.

Steve

[The_MonkeyKing]

6 hours ago, SeinfeldRules said:

Wouldn’t be surprised if we only give them the shorter range, non-precision guided rockets that are around the 32-45km range. The longer range guided GMLRS was used heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it’s contribution would signify a much greater risk to the US Army’s ability to project power. The HIMARS system was used at a level that basically makes it a strategic asset and I doubt we could supply a meaningful amount of the precision rockets without cutting into our own reserves. The unguided rockets have already been phased out of use however, and probably could be contributed with minimal impact from whatever war stock we had left. 

We’ll see how many of the systems we can even contribute however, my understanding is that a portion of the M777s came from the stockpile of Marine artillery units that were recently deactivated, and I don’t think we have dozens of these systems laying around. But I could be wrong. 

I think US can afford to give away equipment even from its active roster... Even if US gave away all of its MLRS systems.

There are a lot of complementary systems to fill the gaps (these can also be expanded temporarily to fill in) and backfilling will happen with production being scaled up (example javelins already being 2x production now).

More details on the matter in this video: 

 

For comparison, Poland just gave away 1/3 of its tank fleet. Comparable percentages in multiple other European countries as well with other systems. US will not even notice its support in the big picture even with it getting a order of magnitude larger.

Also I believe lots of this US capability is earmarked and exists to kill Russians. I believe this is exactly what it is doing when given to Ukraine? So Russian capability lowers and US demand for capability also lowers (at least in the short term). 

Edited May 27, 2022 by The_MonkeyKing

[sburke]

maybe a small part of the reason Russian use of drones doesn't appear as effective....

Russian Soldiers Looting in Ukraine May Also Be Stealing From Putin: Report (msn.com)

 

Russian soldiers have been looting not only Ukrainians but reportedly even their own army in at least one instance, according to an investigation by independent Russian media outlet Mediazona.

A report on the outlet's probe cited a specific case, on April 29, in which a suspected Russian officer was seen in recorded footage bringing a box containing what appeared to be an Orlan drone to a shipping checkpoint in the Russian town of Valuyki, a few miles from the Russia-Ukraine border. Russia has been using Orlan-10 drones in its war in Ukraine, Mediazona reported, indicating that the officer may have stolen the device from his own army.

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Article on what exactly the HIMARS will do for Ukraine.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/what-himars-rocket-systems-can-and-cant-do-for-ukraine

I think the most important aspect is the slow but steady switching of Ukraine to NATO armaments. That and more firepower is more firepower even if it's not "game changing"

Very informative and well presented article.  Thank you for that.

One thing that was not said is that by providing Ukraine the basic platform, the option to provide more sophisticated munitions at a later date becomes easier.  For example, Ukraine approachs the US and say "we need 2 missiles to attack X military target 300km away.  We agree to all the security protocols and guarrantees you require.  How about it?".  If they already have the basic systems in Ukraine operated by competent Ukrainian forces, this is theoretically viable within a short period of time (week?).

So let's not count out what MIGHT happen in the future based only on what we know today.

Steve

[Canada Guy]

1 - I am shocked that Italy has done so little compared to its GDP. If they have supplied items, it has either been very little or completely off the radar. There can't be that many pro-Putinites or I will have to scratch it off my bucket list

2 - If US provided Intel about the invasion to UKR, why was Kherson Oblast allowed to be so ill-prepared or allowed to act contrary to what was needed (e.g. scheduling unit training maneuvers without ordinance/ammo when RU about to attack)?

[sburke]

More fallout for Putin

Pro-Russia Former President Of Moldova Placed Under House Arrest (msn.com)

Moldovan authorities placed the country’s former president and Kremlin ally Igor Dodon under house arrest for 30 days Thursday, the Associated Press and Reuters report, and Dodon suggests legal actions against him are politically motivated amid swirling fears in Moldova of extending Russian influence.

During his house arrest, prosecutors will investigate allegations against Dodon for treason and corruption, and he was detained Tuesday on suspicion of those two charges and graft, according to Elena Cazacov, Moldova’s senior anti-corruption prosecutor, though she did not specify if the treason charges are related to Dodon’s pro-Russian sentiments.

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by sburke

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

I think US can afford to give away equipment even from its active roster... Even if US gave away all of its MLRS systems.

SeinfeldRules was speaking to a ATACMS long range precision rockets, not MRLS in general.  Here's a handy clipping from the article cited above:

Quote

ATACMS is a whole other animal. It would give Ukraine the ability to make long-range pinpoint strikes even against hardened targets over nearly 200 miles.

...

Finally, we must underscore again that the precision rockets these systems can fire are expensive, potentially sensitive in terms of technological risk, and would only be available in limited numbers, if at all. This would limit their impact on the battlefield. But even supplying Ukraine with MLRS or HIMARS and unguided rockets would provide a more accurate capability and an assured supply chain via being able to draw down ammunition from U.S. stocks.

The point SeinfeldRules is that the super long range capability involves tapping into a strategic weapon stockpile, which would be the very first one tapped into by any nation so far.  It is almost akin to giving the Ukrainian Airforce a B2 Bomber.

Steve

[billbindc]

1 minute ago, Canada Guy said:

1 - I am shocked that Italy has done so little compared to its GDP. If they have supplied items, it has either been very little or completely off the radar. There can't be that many pro-Putinites or I will have to scratch it off my bucket list

2 - If US provided Intel about the invasion to UKR, why was Kherson Oblast allowed to be so ill-prepared or allowed to act contrary to what was needed (e.g. scheduling unit training maneuvers without ordinance/ammo when RU about to attack)?

1. Draghi is fine but Italy as a whole is only very reluctantly going along with the rest of the EU and NATO. There's a lot of anti-American feeling and lots of corruption of long standing tied to Russia. 

2. Kherson fell apart because there was apparently a very high level betrayal of the leading military and intelligence figures in the oblast. 

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Canada Guy said:

1 - I am shocked that Italy has done so little compared to its GDP. If they have supplied items, it has either been very little or completely off the radar. There can't be that many pro-Putinites or I will have to scratch it off my bucket list

Italy has had one of the worst Putin problems with its political leadership of probably any nation in Europe.  Italy's far right and far left parties hold enormous power in Italian politics and both are are in Putin's pocket.  If you have the stomach for it, you can read this article:

https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-russia-love-affair-no-end/

2 minutes ago, Canada Guy said:

2 - If US provided Intel about the invasion to UKR, why was Kherson Oblast allowed to be so ill-prepared or allowed to act contrary to what was needed (e.g. scheduling unit training maneuvers without ordinance/ammo when RU about to attack)?

That is something that Ukraine's government looked into and the preliminary conclusion (from what I remember) was a combination of lack of oversight, incompetence, and perhaps even deliberate sabotage.  Haiduk could fill in more details and any late breaking information.

Steve

[The_MonkeyKing]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

SeinfeldRules was speaking to a ATACMS long range precision rockets, not MRLS in general.  Here's a handy clipping from the article cited above:

The point SeinfeldRules is that the super long range capability involves tapping into a strategic weapon stockpile, which would be the very first one tapped into by any nation so far.  It is almost akin to giving the Ukrainian Airforce a B2 Bomber.

Steve

aaa, good clarification. 

I think my point stands even with ATACMS. The problem is not availability, it is the escalation risks. US has the largest stockpiles in the word. (and now the second worst adversary just emptied its own stocks.)

Off course Ukraine has targets for thousands long range strategic missiles. As we see with Russian missile strikes in Ukraine, there is always infinite amount of targets in the deep rear. Prioritization. 

For comparison Finland has about 200 JASSM. So Ukraine might need at most 1000 strategic missiles as a dream scenario.

[fireship4]

12 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Meh, just taking a "piss".

This was a few pages ago but I think you mean 'taking the piss':

Quote

"Take the piss" may be a reference to a related (and dated) idiomatic expression, piss-proud, which is a vulgar pun referring to the morning erections which happen when a male person awakens at the end of a dream cycle (each about 90 minutes in length throughout the night) or may be caused by a full bladder pressing upon nerves that help effect an erection. This could be considered a "false" erection, as its origin is physiological, not psychosexual, so in a metaphoric sense, then, someone who is "piss-proud" would suffer from false pride, and taking the piss out of them refers to deflating this false pride, through disparagement or mockery.^[5][6] As knowledge of the expression's metaphoric origin became lost on users, "taking the piss out of" came to be synonymous with disparagement or mockery itself, with less regard to the pride of the subject.

Conversely, the North East of England also lays claim to the phrase's origin, citing the urine trade which was seen as an undesirable cargo for sailors working from the River Tyne. Because the city collected urine from public facilities and exported a refined version of it, it was often used as ship's ballast in place of water - having a resale value at the other end of the journey. Consequently, sailors discussing their cargo in local establishments would genially accuse others reputed to be lying about their cargo of "taking the piss", or hauling urine.^[7]

"Take the mickey" may be an abbreviated form of the Cockney rhyming slang "take the Mickey Bliss",^[8] a euphemism for "take the piss." It has also been suggested that "mickey" is a contraction of "micturition,"^[5] in which case "take the micturition" would be a synonymous euphemism for "take the piss." The phrase has been noted since the 1930s.

To my intended subject, for a change of pace, a funny video has emerged from Ukraine via OSINTTechnical.  How many times can a hat be blown off one man's head by outgoing artillery... let's watch shall we?

https://nitter.net/Osinttechnical/status/1529952654570422273#m