How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Butschi]

5 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Hey all, wasn't trying to get political.  I posted it as an example of the kind of talking points that will probably be used to undermine the US efforts to support the war going forward.  Note that Chomsky & Caldwell are both on the same page.  The message is "the US is at fault for setting up the causes of the war and for making the war continue, and this is nothing but a proxy war for the US" -- which, as I mentioned, ignores the reality of what Russia has clearly stated it would do to a conquered Ukraine and its people. 

But these talking points are a way forward for undermining US popular support and will probably be amplified.

Strange times.

Before the war started I was arguing (fervently) that Europe should stay out of this, that this was all about US and Russian geopolitical interests, that while of course Putin wasn't a nice guy, Ukraine joining NATO would be the same as Mexiko joining the Warsaw Pact (-> something the US would accept on their doorstep) - and more importantly, that CIA saying that Putin was going to attack was the best proof no attack was going to happen. Oh well. Thing is, I still don't believe that the US as a state are helping Ukraine all for Ukraine's sake. BUT. That doesn't matter because it's not like the USMC was invading St. Petersburg or something, it's the Russian Army being in Ukraine. Most weirdly, currently people on the far right and on the far left of the political spectrum seem to be subscribing to the same channel about conspiracy theories. The other day there was a German politican who said that Boris Johnson doesn't allow Ukraine to make peace. Yeah...

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I am going to be very apolitical with the statements that follow.  I understand that there are those reading this thread that are overly sensitive to criticism of their political views and heroes, but we regularly point out the political failings of other leaders (including Biden, but especially Sholtz) and there's no temper tantrums from their supporters.  I would like to think that supporters of Trump could show the same level of respect for this discussion as everybody else does and not get into pointless partisan driven political attacks.

And so here goes...

This has been a popular talking point from his supporters.  Not long ago I did a local public talk about the underlying causes of this war, going all the way back to Kievan Rus through today.  The theme I kept hammering on was that Russia's attempt at taking over Ukraine goes back centuries and Putin's specific attempts decades.  Putin launched the war during Obama's admin and kept the war going all the way through Trump's.  At the end someone stood up and asked me if this phase of the war was all Biden's fault.  I said, quite diplomatically, that I just sent over an hour explaining that it is much bigger than any one person.  She said that Glenn Beck said otherwise, then stormed off.

The world DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THE US PRESIDENT!!!!!  There's all sorts of things that Putin took into consideration that have absolutely nothing to do with who held that office.  Putin's health might have been a huge factor.  Russia's economic state of health likely was another.  Ukraine's increasingly effective military and political reforms.  Etc.

The fact is that this war was inevitable.  Some think that the only reason why Putin didn't launch a full scale war under the Trump Admin is that he thought he could wait for Trump to cause so much damage/disruption to NATO and trans-Atlantic relations that he could basically walk in and get it without paying a significant price.  He might have thought another couple of years of a 2nd Trump Admin would do the trick.  Then when Trump lost the election he realized that waiting would be a very bad option as Biden would certainly work to strengthen NATO and defend Ukraine's interests.  Putin might also have thought that giving the US military time to recover from 2 decades of fruitless warfare wasn't a good idea either.

If Trump had won the election instead of losing I think Putin would have launched the war no later than next year no matter what.  He might have launched it at exactly the same time as he did.  In fact, I'd put it at greater than 50% chance that if Trump were President today there would be a war in Ukraine of some sort.

Steve

I strongly believe a lot of the timing of he attack on Ukraine was driven by events in Belarus. Lukanhesko spent decades managing to play off Russia and the EU while maintaining more or less absolute and independent power at home. He ran out of rope ~18 months ago and had to ask Putin for real help. That help came with so many strings it almost amounted to annexation. I think it was the ability to start the war with his forces only a hundred miles from Kyiv that convinced Putin he could achieve a quick victory.  Hopefully as Russias position in Ukraine actually fails Lukashenko's choices will narrow to a lamp post and a rope, Polonium tea, or a bullet from his own pistol. Because at the moment he has made everybody mad as bleep, and his tight rope act can't go on forever.

[Harmon Rabb]

5 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Strange times.

Before the war started I was arguing (fervently) that Europe should stay out of this, that this was all about US and Russian geopolitical interests, that while of course Putin wasn't a nice guy, Ukraine joining NATO would be the same as Mexiko joining the Warsaw Pact (-> something the US would accept on their doorstep) - and more importantly, that CIA saying that Putin was going to attack was the best proof no attack was going to happen. Oh well. Thing is, I still don't believe that the US as a state are helping Ukraine all for Ukraine's sake. BUT. That doesn't matter because it's not like the USMC was invading St. Petersburg or something, it's the Russian Army being in Ukraine. Most weirdly, currently people on the far right and on the far left of the political spectrum seem to be subscribing to the same channel about conspiracy theories. The other day there was a German politican who said that Boris Johnson doesn't allow Ukraine to make peace. Yeah...

Why can't those American and British imperialists let Putin kill Ukrainians in peace!?

Some of those "enlightened" far left and far right pro-Putin types are something else.

[Butschi]

16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The fact is that this war was inevitable.  Some think that the only reason why Putin didn't launch a full scale war under the Trump Admin is that he thought he could wait for Trump to cause so much damage/disruption to NATO and trans-Atlantic relations that he could basically walk in and get it without paying a significant price.  He might have thought another couple of years of a 2nd Trump Admin would do the trick.  Then when Trump lost the election he realized that waiting would be a very bad option as Biden would certainly work to strengthen NATO and defend Ukraine's interests.  Putin might also have thought that giving the US military time to recover from 2 decades of fruitless warfare wasn't a good idea either.

If Trump had won the election instead of losing I think Putin would have launched the war no later than next year no matter what.  He might have launched it at exactly the same time as he did.  In fact, I'd put it at greater than 50% chance that if Trump were President today there would be a war in Ukraine of some sort.

Interesting thought. Tbf. I think if Putin calculated on trans-Atlantic relations to further deteriorate with a few more years of Trump he would have been right. I still doubt most people in the US realize just how much trust was shattered in just 4 years of Trump's administration. May well be that even if Trump had supported Ukraine, NATO would stand much less united than it does now.

[Huba]

19 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Which is why I CANNOT understand the hesitation on sending MLRS and the other weapons the Ukrainians need to to turn the pressure on the the Russians up to eleven, and force them into a large scale retreat. Maybe they are working on some sort of "shock and awe" package announcement, but they need to get it done. 

Hopefully so. I general, In recent weeks there seems to be a shift towards announcing already made deliveries - Polish SPGs, Bulgarian Su-25s, etc. It would make sense not to provoke Russians to say, hit transport infrastructure just on the border or do something even more silly. The lend-lease act was accepted around 2 weeks ago, right? Might not be enough for crew training to complete.

Also on topic of the Crimea and counteroffensives in general:

 

[Cederic]

17 hours ago, Calamine Waffles said:

In WOTR, Kofman was saying he thinks Russia will rebuild and probably faster than most people think, but who is going to finance Russia's rebuilding and remodernising of the military?

The EU.

Russia has gas and oil, and as soon as they get the chance the EU will relax all sanctions on those, assuring a strong flow of foreign currency into Russian coffers. Which will be spent in Asia on electronics and raw materials to build new weapons in Russia.

Less certain is whether Russian doctrine can shift. I think it can, because there's nothing like complete miserable failure to push home just how badly change is needed.

What I don't think is that it'll help. The biggest issue isn't the money, the technology, the training or the preferred ways of waging war, it's the corruption. Don't resolve that and Russia will never go into battle properly capable of delivering its plans - and I see nothing that's likely to resolve that any time soon.

[danfrodo]

There's a little group of aging hippies who regularly do war protests outside the county courthouse downtown in my town.  I sometimes agree w them, sometimes not (I was 100% pro-afghan invasion, 90% anti-Iraq invasion). 

They protest every day saying US is prolonging war, blah blah.  But if these folks were Ukrainians and Putin had annexed UKR, then do they think they'd be allowed to wave signs in public like this?  Do they not understand that sometimes one actually has to stand up for one's own freedom?  I get that lots of wars are built on lies, but sometimes folks are actually fighting for survival.  Do they ever think about Hitler?  "if only the jews had spoken w Hitler using non-violent, compassionate communication, then the whole thing wouldn't have happened".  There are rapid dogs in the world and they do bite. 

[Cederic]

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Uncommon video of a clear view of a Stugna-P hitting a moving target:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarRoom/comments/v1br16/stugna_p_destroys_russians/

Heh... you can see a quick flash shows that this is an export model Stugna-P.  Just a tiny glimpse of Arabic.

Steve

That video is properly scary. It really is genuinely like aiming, tracking and destroying an armoured target in a (sorry) computer game I played a couple of years ago.

It worries me when war becomes a game.

Admittedly it's much worse even than that - people sat in an office in Lincolnshire unleash airborne death from drones over Africa, then go home to play with the kids. I don't want my own country's armed forces to face unnecessary danger but when you can detach yourself from reality behind a screen like this it feels that this century is drastically changing the basic nature of war.

[Huba]

4 minutes ago, Cederic said:

The EU.

Russia has gas and oil, and as soon as they get the chance the EU will relax all sanctions on those, assuring a strong flow of foreign currency into Russian coffers. Which will be spent in Asia on electronics and raw materials to build new weapons in Russia.

Less certain is whether Russian doctrine can shift. I think it can, because there's nothing like complete miserable failure to push home just how badly change is needed.

What I don't think is that it'll help. The biggest issue isn't the money, the technology, the training or the preferred ways of waging war, it's the corruption. Don't resolve that and Russia will never go into battle properly capable of delivering its plans - and I see nothing that's likely to resolve that any time soon.

I really don't think so. For large part of north/ eastern Europe Russian energy is a permanent no-no. Czechia and Slovakia will wean off it as soon as  they are able too. I don't think that even Germany will be buying any more Russian oil and gas - the latter will take years, but if they get the ball rolling on getting LNG infrastructure before the war ends, the countdown will be started on this too.

With the oil ban that is about to start, UE is supposed to reduce Russian oil imports by 90%. If this takes place, and we get the alternative sourcing in place, the political cost of returning to Russian will be quite significant - and this is crucial really. Even if official sanctions are lifted, Russian oil is toxic in most of Europe, and will remain so. Gas in comparison is a relatively small % of energy imports, and with the way it was weaponized in this war, nobody wants it anymore, some just don't have an alternative for the time being.

And finally, I hope Orban chokes on his Russian oil, the way Hungary became alienated is mind bogglling. 

[LongLeftFlank]

I'm turning in now (Asia), and expect to find about 3 pages of political turning and turning in the widening gyre when I tune in again. Enjoy....

My own take, as nonpartisan as I can make it:

Whether you choose to call it the NatSec Community, the Policy Establishment, MIC, the Deep State, the Blob or the Swamp, as @billbindc pointed out, a very remarkable consensus and mobilisation on Ukraine indeed took place in DC and among its closest allies (the Five Eyes). Quite surprising to all concerned, given deepening factionalism and crisis of confidence in America in most other spheres, capped by last year's Kabul debacle.

To my mind, that swift consensus was enabled by the cross-institutional 'rule by committee' that seems to have been adopted to cope with both the ahem limitations of the current President, and the, umm, 'eclectic' messaging and methods of the prior President....

And that consensus has deeply disturbed people at both ends of the ideological horseshoe.

FWIW

[danfrodo]

17 minutes ago, Huba said:

Hopefully so. I general, In recent weeks there seems to be a shift towards announcing already made deliveries - Polish SPGs, Bulgarian Su-25s, etc. It would make sense not to provoke Russians to say, hit transport infrastructure just on the border or do something even more silly. The lend-lease act was accepted around 2 weeks ago, right? Might not be enough for crew training to complete.

Also on topic of the Crimea and counteroffensives in general:

 

So Huba, you said a lot of deliveries are announced only after arrival -- good idea it seems to me.  Despite most EU countries throwing out RU spies (AKA embassy staff), I am sure there's still plenty of prying eyes. But I wonder how much of the equipment coming in is actually not known by RU beforehand?

And "territories w no Ukrainians" -- does that mean Crimea?  the pre-feb22 donbas areas?

[asurob]

58 minutes ago, billbindc said:

 

In short, I think Putin would have succeeded at almost any time before 2020 in getting a better outcome with greater or lesser levels of resistance depending on the particular occupant of the office but the reaction of this White House has been highly exceptional in scope and degree. 

This absolutely, various op eds are working hard to undermine the current US support for the war because of ...well reasons.  Mostly to do whatever damage they can to the current administration. 

Say what you want about the current occupant of the White House.  His handling of the Russian invasion of a European democracy and the unifying of NATO countries to oppose it has absolutely been spot on.  We all know with a certainty how this would have gone had the previous administration been in charge. 

[danfrodo]

2 minutes ago, Huba said:

I really don't think so. For large part of north/ eastern Europe Russian energy is a permanent no-no. Czechia and Slovakia will wean off it as soon as  they are able too. I don't think that even Germany will be buying any more Russian oil and gas - the latter will take years, but if they get the ball rolling on getting LNG infrastructure before the war ends, the countdown will be started on this too.

With the oil ban that is about to start, UE is supposed to reduce Russian oil imports by 90%. If this takes place, and we get the alternative sourcing in place, the political cost of returning to Russian will be quite significant - and this is crucial really. Even if official sanctions are lifted, Russian oil is toxic in most of Europe, and will remain so. Gas in comparison is a relatively small % of energy imports, and with the way it was weaponized in this war, nobody wants it anymore, some just don't have an alternative for the time being.

And finally, I hope Orban chokes on his Russian oil, the way Hungary became alienated is mind bogglling. 

I am guessing Orban is paying below market prices for that RU oil, and/or is getting massive kickbacks.  One thing Putin is actually smart about is knowing that people are cheap cheap cheap.  A measly $1 million buys a whole lot of good will.

[G.I. Joe]

4 minutes ago, Huba said:

I really don't think so. For large part of north/ eastern Europe Russian energy is a permanent no-no. Czechia and Slovakia will wean off it as soon as  they are able too. I don't think that even Germany will be buying any more Russian oil and gas - the latter will take years, but if they get the ball rolling on getting LNG infrastructure before the war ends, the countdown will be started on this too.

With the oil ban that is about to start, UE is supposed to reduce Russian oil imports by 90%. If this takes place, and we get the alternative sourcing in place, the political cost of returning to Russian will be quite significant - and this is crucial really. Even if official sanctions are lifted, Russian oil is toxic in most of Europe, and will remain so. Gas in comparison is a relatively small % of energy imports, and with the way it was weaponized in this war, nobody wants it anymore, some just don't have an alternative for the time being.

And finally, I hope Orban chokes on his Russian oil, the way Hungary became alienated is mind bogglling. 

I keep hoping Germany will reverse course on nuclear power as a result of recent events, which would help with climate change as well as keeping Russia strategically isolated. Maybe too much to hope for, but we'll have to see...

[Battlefront.com]

59 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I strongly believe a lot of the timing of he attack on Ukraine was driven by events in Belarus. Lukanhesko spent decades managing to play off Russia and the EU while maintaining more or less absolute and independent power at home. He ran out of rope ~18 months ago and had to ask Putin for real help. That help came with so many strings it almost amounted to annexation. I think it was the ability to start the war with his forces only a hundred miles from Kyiv that convinced Putin he could achieve a quick victory.  Hopefully as Russias position in Ukraine actually fails Lukashenko's choices will narrow to a lamp post and a rope, Polonium tea, or a bullet from his own pistol. Because at the moment he has made everybody mad as bleep, and his tight rope act can't go on forever.

I think the crumbling stability of Russia's "near abroad" allies, including Kazakhstan, played a role in the timing.  I do not think it was the primary one.

What I think led us to this moment is that a whole host of factors all coalesced into Putin deciding it was pretty much now or never.  I don't think we'll ever get a full explanation as to why now and why a full scale war, but objectively it's very clear that from Russia's standpoint conditions since 2020 that may have made things more favorable were decreasing while conditions for a less favorable war were on the increase.  Basically, Putin had a "poop or vacate the commode" moment.  He chose very unwisely.

Steve

[danfrodo]

on current US admin, I'd say two somewhat contradictory things are true at the same time:

1.  The US is not providing enough of what UKR needs and could/should provide a lot more

2.  The US is providing ~10X more than any other nation

So folks can choose which of these to ignore or accept, but they are both true.  I accept both of these so I am glad and  mad at the same time. 

[danfrodo]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think the crumbling stability of Russia's "near abroad" allies, including Kazakhstan, played a role in the timing.  I do not think it was the primary one.

What I think led us to this moment is that a whole host of factors all coalesced into Putin deciding it was pretty much now or never.  I don't think we'll ever get a full explanation as to why now and why a full scale war, but objectively it's very clear that from Russia's standpoint conditions since 2020 that conditions that may have made things more favorable were decreasing while conditions for a less favorable war were on the increase.  Basically, Putin had a "poop or vacate the commode" moment.  He chose very unwisely.

Steve

I have actually been rooting for Dan/CA's Belarus domino theory, as likely or unlikely as it might be.  He's been proponent (author?) of theory that fall of Lukashenko would be tipping point leading to RU collapse.  I like it not because it seems likely to happen soon, but because it makes me feel good just daydreaming about it.

[akd]

@sburke @Kinophile

Major (recently promoted) Alexander Shishkov, commander 1st Company, 3rd Airborne Battalion, 31st Separate Air-Assault Brigade (may have taken on higher command duties with promotion):

Major (posthumous promotion) Denis Nosenko, unknown unit (maybe 24th Separate Spetsnaz Brigade in Novosibirsk?)

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by akd

[Battlefront.com]

35 minutes ago, Cederic said:

The EU.

Russia has gas and oil, and as soon as they get the chance the EU will relax all sanctions on those, assuring a strong flow of foreign currency into Russian coffers. Which will be spent in Asia on electronics and raw materials to build new weapons in Russia.

We've covered this at length.  The oil revenue from the EU is not going to make any difference to Russia's ability to rebuild its military.  It diverted a huge chunk of a much larger economy to outfit it's current military with stuff largely leftover from the Soviet days, and look where it got them.  It took them almost 20 YEARS to get it to this point.  The thought that it can rebuild to the prewar levels from SCRATCH with an economy that is greatly smaller and under far more restrictions is fantasy.  To think that they can carry off this fantasy in a timeframe that matters to this war is not even in this plane of reality.

I understand the fears/concerns that Russia can pull a rabbit out of its hat, but the fact is the hat is a sun visor and the rabbit is dead.  Putin has shown him to be a kids party hack of a magician.  He'd need to be Gandalf to pull this off.

35 minutes ago, Cederic said:

Less certain is whether Russian doctrine can shift. I think it can, because there's nothing like complete miserable failure to push home just how badly change is needed.

And yet... they still haven't changed despite 3 months of getting their behind spanked hard.  The conditions at the front are so bad that even if Russia magically learned out to conduct itself better it doesn't have the forces remaining to do it with.

35 minutes ago, Cederic said:

What I don't think is that it'll help. The biggest issue isn't the money, the technology, the training or the preferred ways of waging war, it's the corruption. Don't resolve that and Russia will never go into battle properly capable of delivering its plans - and I see nothing that's likely to resolve that any time soon.

Russia could change its ways sometime in the future, but not in this war.  It's lost and there's nothing Putin can do to reverse it.

Steve

[Cederic]

5 hours ago, kraze said:

Yeah and remind me who is stealing toilets from whom en masse?

:)

*hugs*

[Battlefront.com]

Quick comment about losses.  There is ~115 Majors and Lt Colonels on Sburke's tally sheet.  These guys are mostly responsible for commanding the BTGs and providing backup for senior leadership (RGT and DIV) posts.  Let's say 75% of the losses are in maneuver units and 25% at higher HQs.  This means about 85 BTGs have lost a senior level commander since the war started.  Depending on how you count BTGs, this is about 50% of all BTGs fielded.

Ouch.

Steve

[billbindc]

27 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I'm turning in now (Asia), and expect to find about 3 pages of political turning and turning in the widening gyre when I tune in again. Enjoy....

My own take, as nonpartisan as I can make it:

1. Whether you choose to call it the NatSec Community, the Policy Establishment, MIC, the Deep State, the Blob or the Swamp, as @billbindc pointed out, a very remarkable consensus and mobilisation on Ukraine indeed took place in DC and among its closest allies (the Five Eyes). Quite surprising to all concerned, given deepening factionalism and crisis of confidence in America in most other spheres, capped by last year's Kabul debacle.

2. To my mind, that swift consensus was enabled by the cross-institutional 'rule by committee' that seems to have been adopted to cope with both the ahem limitations of the current President, and the, umm, 'eclectic' messaging and methods of the prior President....

3. And that consensus has deeply disturbed people at both ends of the ideological horseshoe.

FWIW

To your points above (numbered because I can't be arsed to figure out split quotes): 

1. You get at something I didn't articulate well earlier. I think *every* administration would have reacted negatively to the Russian invasion of Ukraine...even the Trump administration. The key thing to focus on is that *this* administration took the ball in *April, 2021* and ran very hard with it. I don't  think any other would have because no other likely US POTUS has the experience Biden does in foreign policy and with Putin directly. In other words, the execution was nearly flawless and that's the primary reason the EU nations were ready when it came and responded in the manner they did. 

2. I would be quite skeptical of the idea that Biden is not directly and immediately in charge on a day to day basis. The staff work, the approach to the EU, the Nordstream 2 deal made with Germany, the absolutely astringent view take of Russia and Putin are all hallmarks of his approach to foreign policy. I get it. He can seem like a goofball. What you will notice is that it's very hard to find anyone on either side of the aisle who's worked with him extensively who doesn't take him seriously. 

3. The ends of the horseshoe share one important interest...they pretty much always think America is wrong. 

[Butschi]

18 minutes ago, G.I. Joe said:

I keep hoping Germany will reverse course on nuclear power as a result of recent events, which would help with climate change as well as keeping Russia strategically isolated. Maybe too much to hope for, but we'll have to see...

Straying off topic here... As a (particle) physicist I hope (and I'm also quite convinced) that we are not going back to nuclear power. There is no CO2 coming out of the chimney but that's about the only positive thing I can think of. While nuclear power does not rely on fossile fuel in the sense that it doesn't consist of dead animals and plants it is also not regenerative and really doesn't grow on trees. It is really like with gas: yes, you can get the stuff from "friendly nations" like Canada and Australia but one of the biggest suppliers is Kazachstan. Mining the stuff is really nasty and then there is the problem of nuclear waste and not to mention the danger of accidents. Yes, there are ideas and concepts how to handle the latter two but they are more or less just that: ideas and concepts and by no means prooven. What's more, nuclear power is just not economically competitive.

No, I hope we neither go back to nuclear power nor rely on LNG for long - the only benefit of US LNG compared to Russian gas is that it's not Russian. What we really should do is invest massively in renewable energy sources and become independent, energy-wise.

[danfrodo]

I think the most important factor in the continuing war is russian public opinion.  Which will turn completely against Putin and the war when word leaks out that Stranger Things Season 4 has released and they can't watch it (except for the clever folks w VPNs).  There will riots in Moscow, St Petersburg, Siberia will try to succeed, it will be an complete breakdown of government and empire.

[Vacillator]

5 minutes ago, Butschi said:

What we really should do is invest massively in renewable energy sources and become independent, energy-wise.

I would tend to agree, but it also needs large scale energy storage sorting out to flatten out intermittency (if that's a word).

Meanwhile in the UK we have new announcements of nuclear investment.