How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[womble]

20 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

why now and why a full scale war

Because the Russian intelligence "massaged" their reports as to how deeply they'd suborned the establishment, and failed to present an accurate assessment of Ukrainian public sentiment to their superiors. Putin was expecting a collapsing adversary, crippled by betrayal and graft, but had to throw a lot at the problem anyway, because even if Zelensky's government collapsed and turned its coat, the target country would need at least a little pacification and control until the puppet government could be set up, and that would take a combination of riot police and soldiers, in fairly large number, just because it's a big country.

As we can all see, this did not come about, and Putin had gambled his whole pile on the right outcome. Accepting this, early, and pulling out was not a survivable outcome for Putin, so he's "double-or-quits"ed a number of times now. And his marker is rapidly losing credibility.

[Bulletpoint]

3 hours ago, sburke said:

Top Russian Military Brass Caught Venting, ‘You’re F*cked, Putin—Motherf*cker!’ (thedailybeast.com)

cover your ears children, this is very crude talk.

All these supposed intercepted calls are always entertaining, but how do we know they are genuine?

Apparently, this conversation was supplied by Radio Free Europe, which originated as counterpropaganda station during the cold war, funded by the CIA. And the intercept itself was supplied by the Ukrainian intelligence services.

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, billbindc said:

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. 

Yup.  The key to how this war has turned out is the West's planning for it well ahead of time.  It is evident to anybody who knows much about how governments work, not to mention the US government specifically, that things have been in motion for a very long time behind the scene.  More importantly, the activities were done with a sense of urgency from the very start.  Deliberate, well thought out and HIGHLY coordinated planning was done within the US gov't and with its allies.  Even if the previous Admin had shown the sort of political will to pursue a similar path, there's just about zero evidence that it would have been able to pull it off.  Even the Admin's own hand picked people have openly criticized the lack of planning and consistency.

If Putin had launched this war in 2019 I think it would have gone mostly the way Putin wanted it to.  There would have been no determined, consistent, coherent policy out of the US and Europe would have been fractured around the Germany/France/Italy doing the bare minimum and the UK leading the Eastern European nations trying to do something meaningful.  The overall totality of the response would likely have been about as useful as the response in 2014 under Obama's leadership.

The part that would not have gone well for Putin would be the fighting.  I think Ukraine would have initially performed almost the same as it did in 2022, serving up a major bloody nose and lack of major achievements.  However, Ukraine's forces would have fallen apart without the huge level of support from the West it received in 2022.  Russia might not have taken Kyiv, but it would have got most everything else.  Temporarily.  With Ukraine's conventional options trashed they would have focused heavily on unconventional warfare.  Ukraine could support that war indefinitely without anybody's help.  Russia would eventually be defeated in some way, though I shudder to think what the implications of a long defeat would be on the Ukrainian peoples in the east.  Good thing I don't have to

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, womble said:

Because the Russian intelligence "massaged" their reports as to how deeply they'd suborned the establishment, and failed to present an accurate assessment of Ukrainian public sentiment to their superiors. Putin was expecting a collapsing adversary, crippled by betrayal and graft, but had to throw a lot at the problem anyway, because even if Zelensky's government collapsed and turned its coat, the target country would need at least a little pacification and control until the puppet government could be set up, and that would take a combination of riot police and soldiers, in fairly large number, just because it's a big country.

As we can all see, this did not come about, and Putin had gambled his whole pile on the right outcome. Accepting this, early, and pulling out was not a survivable outcome for Putin, so he's "double-or-quits"ed a number of times now. And his marker is rapidly losing credibility.

The intelligence was almost certainly massaged to fit a directive from Putin to invade, not the other way around.

Steve

[akd]

11 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

All these supposed intercepted calls are always entertaining, but how do we know they are genuine?

Apparently, this conversation was supplied by Radio Free Europe, which originated as counterpropaganda station during the cold war, funded by the CIA. And the intercept itself was supplied by the Ukrainian intelligence services.

Could be fake, but also includes claims of verification by independent orgs.  I did note that they seem to have re-recorded this conversation with actors for clarity, so comes off as fake, but it seems they do play back actual call recording when talking to the (supposed) men involved by phone.  If the conversation doesn’t exist in full in a rougher actual call intercept recording, then I guess it is fake.

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by akd

[billbindc]

1 hour 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. 

I have pretty much come around to believing that the Afghanistan withdrawal was done in part to deny the Russians the ability to hit back there when the balloon went up in Ukraine.

There simply isn't a hesitation to send them. Today it was leaked to the WSJ that systems with a range of 60m are already in process and will be on the battlefield in about 6 weeks. The supposed "gaffe" was Biden referring to the fact that the USG was not going to send the longest ranged systems. Most commentators haven't the foggiest idea of systems and ranges so they simply assumed the worst. 

Welcome to Washington.

Edited May 31, 2022 by billbindc

[FancyCat]

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

There simply isn't a hesitation to send them. Today it was leaked to the WSJ that systems with a range of 60m are already in process and will on the battlefield in about 6 weeks. The supposed "gaffe" was Biden referring to the fact that the USG was not going to send the longest ranged systems. Most commentators haven't the foggiest idea of systems and ranges so they simply assumed the worst. 

Welcome to Washington.

It was quoted that a Russian official responded to Biden's comments something along the lines of it being good and non-escalating. There is a important mind game ongoing vs Russia, and part of it certainly is tilting the scale towards Ukraine's victory while doing their best to let Russia think the war is going fine enough to not seek urgent escalatory actions to try and force NATO to back down from supporting Ukraine else Russia sees its impending defeat come true. 

[fireship4]

 

5 hours ago, AlsatianFelix said:

Everyone should notice that the Uke AFVs moving in the Davydiv Brid, Kherson videos are marked with a new recognition symbol:  a single vertical white stripe on each of the four faces of the vehicle.

The scheme is not new, judging by the fact that it was in-game around February 2015 thanks to @Kieme(ITA):

Edited May 31, 2022 by fireship4

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, akd said:

Could be fake, but also includes claims of verification by independent orgs.  I did note that they seem to have re-recorded this conversation with actors for clarity, so comes off as fake, but it seems they do play back actual call recording when talking to the (supposed) men involved by phone.  If the conversation doesn’t exist in a rougher actual call intercept recording, then I guess it is fake.

 

The Daily Beast article that sburke posted a few pages ago shows that reporters even called the two Colonels to dig further and it appears to confirm that the call was real.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, billbindc said:

There simply isn't a hesitation to send them. Today it was leaked to the WSJ that systems with a range of 60m are already in process and will be on the battlefield in about 6 weeks. The supposed "gaffe" was Biden referring to the fact that the USG was not going to send the longest ranged systems. Most commentators haven't the foggiest idea of systems and ranges so they simply assumed the worst. 

Welcome to Washington.

It would be great if these "gaffes" were part of a disinformation campaign.  Certainly these things are very effective, including the one about defending Taiwan militarily.  Keeps the autocrats guessing just like they like to keep us guessing.

But given Biden's history of flubs when speaking off the cuff, I'm going to go with gaffes

Steve

[FancyCat]

Amazing footage. Edit: Geolocated by twitter user in comments! 

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by FancyCat

[Huba]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

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?

Ha, I bet the old style "watching the enemy airport/ train stations with binoculars" is making a comeback

As for the second part, your guess is as good as mine here, it's just a (translated) quote. But he couldn't have anything else in mind, unless he considers Belgorod to be part of Ukraine.

41 minutes ago, Butschi said:

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.

As a concerned citizen, I beg to differ, but at the end it is up to you guys to decide, just don't ruin it for everyone else

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by Huba

[dan/california]

Obrien notes the probable fall off in Russian vehicle losses recently. I have noted this before and was really worried it indicated the Russians were getting their bleep together, convincing their infantry to do its job, and so on. His much cheerier take is that they are running out of vehicles to lose, and are therefore just having to be far more careful with them. That is why they couldn't exploit it when that TD unit cracked at Popsana. They just didn't have enough armor left for a real attack. I would say this significantly reinforces Steve's thesis that the Russian army really is pretty close to just cracking up.

[c3k]

6 hours ago, akd said:

Remember that tank that hit a mine and decided to see if it could find more mines in the minefield? Things just got worse after the second mine:

 

The ATGM hit in the top video link: Note the crewmember standing on the glacis/left track cover. He's fully exposed. The ATGM hit, he stayed there...and even made like he was trying to look into/access the tank. 

Props to the man for fortitude and trying to help his crew.

Only after the flames launch out of the tank commander's hatch does this crewmember hop off the tank and try to achieve some cover by crouching next to the track.

Interesting how was not immediately rendered hors de combat by the initial ATGM explosion.

[sburke]

40 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

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

I was about to ask as akd just posted two guys, a major and a posthumous promotion to major.  I was curious as to the difference in role for a Major in the Russian army and the US and therefore what this impact might reflect there.

Also note my list is definitely lagging as we weren't really tracking these kinds of losses early on.  The spreadsheet that dude was keeping earlier but seems to have not done so in quite a while listed this almost a month ago now.

Lt Gen 1
Mjr Gen 7
Col 20
Lt Col 36
Maj 52
Cpt 94
Sr Lt 96
Lt 75

The numbers we have are low reflecting both that not all losses are accounted for both in time lag and some of these guys will likely have been simply vaporized and Russia has shown little concern for retrieving their fallen or reporting on them.

 

[danfrodo]

5 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Obrien notes the probable fall off in Russian vehicle losses recently. I have noted this before and was really worried it indicated the Russians were getting their bleep together, convincing their infantry to do its job, and so on. His much cheerier take is that they are running out of vehicles to lose, and are therefore just having to be far more careful with them. That is why they couldn't exploit it when that TD unit cracked at Popsana. They just didn't have enough armor left for a real attack. I would say this significantly reinforces Steve's thesis that the Russian army really is pretty close to just cracking up.

Maybe the decreased loss of vehicles is due to smarter tactics, like simply flattening w artillery (which has a cost in logistics and shell supply).   Or maybe it's because there's shortage of operational vehicles --  newer vehicles are worn down and lost vehicles are being replaced with old stuff out of mothballs -- and given RU maintenence and corruption history I suspect these vehicles have a very low readiness rate once at the front.

[c3k]

For Ukraine to effectively move to the offense would, I think, require a lot more counter-battery fire by the Ukrainians. The Russian artillery is a dominant force on the battlefield. (One of several.) 

Once the Russian artillery has been attrited down to lower levels, then we'll see some faster/deeper Ukrainian movements.

[billbindc]

34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

It would be great if these "gaffes" were part of a disinformation campaign.  Certainly these things are very effective, including the one about defending Taiwan militarily.  Keeps the autocrats guessing just like they like to keep us guessing.

But given Biden's history of flubs when speaking off the cuff, I'm going to go with gaffes

Steve

I'm *pretty* sure the China/Taiwan statement was not a gaffe. It's been our sotto voce policy forever to defend Taiwan militarily if the PRC tries to seize it militarily but that's nots not a marker a POTUS would normally be able to place so obviously in normal times. The successful reaction to the Ukraine invasion made it pretty easy. Now it's been said, bluntly, and it's now a clear diplomatic and military reality with which Xi must contend. Yet another reason for Beijing to be irritated with Putin.

[Butschi]

38 minutes ago, Huba said:

As a concerned citizen, I beg to differ, but at the end it is up to you guys to decide, just don't ruin it for everyone else

Well, do correct me if I sad something incorrect.

 

Warning, mild polemic and cynicism following: I guess every nation is entitled to decide for themselves whether they want to have a ticking time bomb in their backyard that can potentially also devastate their neighbours. At least Europe has prevailing west winds, so if one of your plants blows up chances are good the fallout goes to the east, not the west. Sorry, couldn't resist. 'Nough said, back on topic.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Butschi

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I'm *pretty* sure the China/Taiwan statement was not a gaffe. It's been our sotto voce policy forever to defend Taiwan militarily if the PRC tries to seize it militarily but that's nots not a marker a POTUS would normally be able to place so obviously in normal times. The successful reaction to the Ukraine invasion made it pretty easy. Now it's been said, bluntly, and it's now a clear diplomatic and military reality with which Xi must contend. Yet another reason for Beijing to be irritated with Putin.

I think that Biden's gaffe was saying the quiet part out loud by accident.

I cohesive disinformation action would have Biden "gaffe" about the US being ready to do the same to China as it is doing to Russia, then have the gaffe walked back by multiple officials as a mischaracterization of real US policy accompanied by some sort of doublespeak outline of what the "real" policy is.

This pretty much what happened, but I'm guessing that it wasn't intentional.

Steve

[danfrodo]

I was against nuke power but now am 50-50 based on new technology that is being developed.  Example is NuScale, which is located on the same site where I work (well, work there once in a while since at home last 2+ years).   Modular, passive safety, VERY different than what's in use today.  I've met some of the engineers -- a couple of them are Russians.

https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology?utm_source=nuscalepower&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=default-3feat-1

I am posting this because imagine a world where countries like Russia (and Saudi Arabia, et al) no longer have the incredible economic power that comes w fossil fuels.  Yeah, that's not a bad world. 

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The part that would not have gone well for Putin would be the fighting.  I think Ukraine would have initially performed almost the same as it did in 2022, serving up a major bloody nose and lack of major achievements.

That is certainly possible but I am not so sure. It seems that the US intel warning that the Russians were going to hit the airports around Kyvi and attempt a fake coup allowed the Ukrainians to stop the assaults on the air field and interfere with the assault on their president. If indeed the US intel was key to stopping those early moves and the Ukrainias never got that intel then the initial phase of the war could have been quiet different. Imagine if a new president was inserted and the Russian army was holding key locations in Kyiv the chaos that would have generated for the Ukranian army would have been non trivial.

Thankfully that is nothing but speculation at this point though.

[JonS]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

And yet... they still haven't changed despite 3 months of getting their behind spanked hard. 

True, but you could say the same about, say, the US in Vietnam, although that was a multi-year example of not improving ... *despite* the homeland being utterly secure. It was after the war that the US Army reformed and improved out of sight. During the war ... not so much. Same with Prussia in the Napoleanic era. As Rumsfeld said; you go with what you've got. It's in the quiet times that you change.

Edited May 31, 2022 by JonS

[G.I. Joe]

16 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

I was against nuke power but now am 50-50 based on new technology that is being developed.  Example is NuScale, which is located on the same site where I work (well, work there once in a while since at home last 2+ years).   Modular, passive safety, VERY different than what's in use today.  I've met some of the engineers -- a couple of them are Russians.

https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology?utm_source=nuscalepower&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=default-3feat-1

I am posting this because imagine a world where countries like Russia (and Saudi Arabia, et al) no longer have the incredible economic power that comes w fossil fuels.  Yeah, that's not a bad world. 

And that last point, I think, we can all agree on. Whether it's renewables, next-generation nuclear or some combination thereof that replaces the carbon economy, the world has just seen way too much of petrodollars as an economic lifeline for dictators...

[Ultradave]

26 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think that Biden's gaffe was saying the quiet part out loud by accident.

Beat me to it. That's exactly it. He didn't say anything that hasn't been US policy for many administrations, he just put it more explicitly than it usually is. Biden isn't much for diplomatic veiled speech. He never has been. It's only a "gaffe" in the sense that he was more blunt about the truth. 

Dave