How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Butschi]

16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

To summarize, the first is a clear attack on NATO.  Full stop, end of story.  The other two were countries on NATO's borders waging murderous wars and NATO belatedly trying to do something to stop it.  Given this, as long as Russia wasn't intent on waging a murderous war of aggression on NATO's borders then it had nothing to fear.

I think NATO can afford to be a little more self-critical. Afghanistan, while indeed officially defensive was at least controversial. NATO and/or the USA were not attacked by the nation Afghanistan but by a terror organization with their home base in Afghanistan. To make that a case for article 5 was at least stretching things a bit. Making not handing over the leader of an organization a legal casus belli is also a really slippery slope.

Anyway, I don't think all this whataboutism is doing much good. What Russia is doing is really evil and it doesn't get better by pointing out that other countries are doing evil things, too. What annoys me, though, is that this way we are handing the really bad guys around the globe cheap justifications. (Nowadays everyone justifies every military intervention with war on terror, for instance.)

[sburke]

1 hour ago, CHEqTRO said:

NATO is indeed a threat to the Russian Kleptocracy, in the sense that any military or political entity with a better and more rational system of government by rule of law is a threat to a kleptocracy just by existing. A Nato country has a lot of leverage over Russia than a non-one because it has the military backing to defend itself. Simultaneously, the biggest threat from NATO is that it impedes Russia to regain control over Eastern Europe and forces to be contained in their internationally recognized borders.

with some additions it makes total sense. 

[Battlefront.com]

Look what we have here...

 

[Battlefront.com]

For you Ceasar fans out there:

 

[akd]

More fun with Caesar (second clip is first part):

“ORCS” lolol

[Butschi]

18 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Well yes nuclear escalation can happen, but there are steps to escalation. stuff like mobilizing the nuclear fleet, placing it on higher alert, actually/pretending to prep for nuclear launch, raising of rhetoric, hell, even conventional attacks are escalatory and are part of the nuclear climb up, in that russia would for example, bomb Poland with a conventional weapon to warn it from pursuing further support of Ukraine or risk more serious, potential nuclear escalation. that Russia has refrained from it, indicates that they dont want to risk escalation, they cant afford to escalate as they lose more, and that they worry the west matches the escalation. 

I agree. But that logic is only valid while both sides are acting rationally. During the Cold War both sides were actually fairly rational players. Because, as you say, both sides would have been annihilated and so had nothing to gain by escalating. I just doubt the assumption that both sides will act rational under all circumstances. Or that what we think is rational is not all that rational from Putins point of view. Hell, almost everyone here thought it was totally irrational to start this war in the first place.

[Huba]

And even more CAESAR goodness:

 

[Centurian52]

On 6/6/2022 at 3:30 PM, Battlefront.com said:

Also, what is this going to do to their arms export business? 

Ouch! That's a really good point. Russian kit looked like **** after the Gulf War, and back then there was the excuse that everything the Iraqis had was old export stuff, not the latest and greatest domestic stuff. But this isn't export Russian equipment getting trashed. This is the actual Russian army, with its own latest and greatest domestic kit, getting trashed, in a full-scale, no-excuses, this-really-is-the-best-they-can-do context. Even if the Russians still have the industry to build new tanks to sell after this war (which I think is doubtful), I wonder how many buyers there will be for them?

[Battlefront.com]

A bit of footage of an Orlan-10 being shot down by Ukrainian SAM:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarRoom/comments/v8dzm8/ukrainian_wasp_sam_system_shoots_down_a_russian/

And yet more evidence that Putin is not feeling like his old self.  Every year (at least once) he engages in hours and hours of phone calls to show the people that he cares about them and that he's on top of things.  But not this year.  Either he's not physically or psychologically up for it.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/08/putin-suddenly-cancels-marathon-tv-phone-in-with-russian-callers-16793754/amp/

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Like what?  Say China quietly backs another side in a US led western intervention, how exactly are they going to be in trouble?  Russia already did this with bounties in Afghanistan and all we did was make quacking noises.  If China decides to supply and support their freedom fighters, our options beyond starting WW3 are limited.  Our options against Russia are non-existent. 

Supplying the other side is a long held tradition in "short of war" space.  Russians did it in Vietnam, we did it in Afghanistan (Round 1).  

That would be the plan, but regional containment has now raised the bill significantly.  Imagine Iraq in '03 as a proxy war.  We now have to make Jordan, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia airtight to prevent flow of outside support to the other team.  The intervention bill before casualties just went up by an order of magnitude.

Not many countries can field next-gen ATGMs and MANPADs, however primary competitors all can, and in Chinas case we already know they have been working very hard at knock offs. 

We would definitely try and establish operational pre-conditions first; however, I am not sure what that looks like.  We lost air dominance below 2000 feet in Iraq against ISIL and they were basically using commercial off the shelf stuff. Information warfare is even more tricky, hell we can't even agree as to what a legitimate military target is or is not in the information space...and that kind of thing can cripple a coalition.

In the opening phase of this war, based on what we have seen and heard, yes, very much.  In the first month of this war the UA did not have enough artillery to cover a 1000km+ frontage, so ATGMs were likely doing a lot of the heavy lifting.  We are definitely in an arty-duel phase now.  Regardless, next gen man portable ATGMs with ridiculous ranges and kill ratios have arrived there is enough video evidence of this in this war to prove it.

In Iraq in '05, the insurgents brought logistical resupply along the main MSR for the US to a grinding halt.  They cut the secondary routes and then IED'd US logistics until it damned near broke - it actually had to pause for a week to re-tool, which is nuts.  This war points to a whole other level of projection of friction onto an operational system.

This has been brought up before.  What we are seeing in Ukraine is consistent with trends we saw back in the Donbas in 2014, in Iraq against ISIL, and in the Nagorno-Karbakh.  I am sure some phenomenon are unique to this war and we will be spending some time trying to figure that one out.  However, there has been a weird noise coming out of conventional warfare for some time now and this war has just underlined in bold some of that.  

This week I got some capstone doctrine to review and provide feedback, and right up front "we are a manoeuvre warfare, mission command based military"...and I am think..."are we now?"  "Should we be?"

The very large open question is can a really effective active protection system be built at a price anybody can actually pay? If the Trophy system, or its successor from Lockheed can knock down most ATGMs the future of warfare is going to look one way, and if it can't things are REALLY going to change. To reiterate I don't think it helps if tanks wind up costing more that fighter jets. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by dan/california

[CHEqTRO]

33 minutes ago, sburke said:

with some additions it makes total sense. 

"NATO is indeed a threat to the Russian Kleptocracy, in the sense that any military or political entity with a better and more rational system of government by rule of law is a threat to a kleptocracy just by existing."

Meh, the type of russian government is irrelevant, what matters is their socioeconomic dynamics. Wether ist a kleptocracy, a democracy or whaetver utopic/dystopic way of government you like, it would not change that the current russian state, as a political and economic entety, is headed for collapse. At best, like I said, they can get to be a junior partner of Europe if they fully open their markets. Considering they still desire to be a great power, and they have all the right to desire so, that is not an option. Inaction will lead to chinese control of their economy (after the inevitable collapse) and political fragmentation.

"A Nato country has a lot of leverage over Russia than a non-one because it has the military backing to defend itself. Simultaneously, the biggest threat from NATO is that it impedes Russia to regain control over Eastern Europe and forces to be contained in their internationally recognized borders."

Exactly, thats my whole point. That is still a threat to Russia, whatever international law says changes little that fact.

Edited June 9, 2022 by CHEqTRO

[cyrano01]

58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Possible, but doubtful.  First, Russians have shown very little interest in destroying their stuff when they abandon it.  Second, they would most likely have dropped an offensive grenade down the barrel.  The damage is clearly from a lot more than that.  Theoretically they could have put a round in the breach, blocked the barrel with something, attached a very long lanyard to the firing lever, and fired from a remote position.  Definitely no signs that they have the motivation for something like that.

Most likely scenario is premature detonation.

Steve

When I saw the picture of the D-20 with the 'petals' at the end of the barrel remains I did wonder about that. The first image that flashed into my mind was of British guns destroyed at Dunkirk prior to evacuation.  The damage to the D-20 seems far more catastrophic and nearer to the breech though which favours a premature.

[Beleg85]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

This has been brought up before.  What we are seeing in Ukraine is consistent with trends we saw back in the Donbas in 2014, in Iraq against ISIL, and in the Nagorno-Karbakh.  I am sure some phenomenon are unique to this war and we will be spending some time trying to figure that one out.  However, there has been a weird noise coming out of conventional warfare for some time now and this war has just underlined in bold some of that.  

Fair points.

What I meant is that there are not many flashpoints in the world where US will find itself in a Putin situation. State vs. state war of aggression, against unified population with more numerous regular army/insurgents fighting conventional war. Oh, and without allies.

I don't know, maybe invasion of mainland China if somebody thinks about doomsday scenario. But other than that, every possible flashpoint (Taiwan) or highly-improbable scenario (Korea, Middle-East, Baltics?) involve actual boots on the ground by your allies rather than Americans putting their lives in line. They would main force to face attrition warfare.

Of course this question is different for other armies. So for example India,Turkey or France like to wage their own peculiar wars but lacks this massive advantages US has, and questions you raised about future of warfare are more valid for them than for US itself.

Btw. China's attitude is something worth to remember. I frankly expected them to supply Russia with something non lethal (like at least their horrible field rations). But no, nothing - not even words of some special support.

This itself speaks volume about US power in the world.

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Beleg85

[Huba]

Putin openly said that territorial conquest is his goal. At least there's no more BS...

 

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, CHEqTRO said:

Exactly, thats my whole point. That is still a threat to Russia, whatever international law says changes little that fact.

I think we enlightened people should change the way we talk about this particular point as it is the central one in any discussion about this topic.

NATO is not a threat to the Russian Federation as a legally recognized country.  NATO is also not a threat to the Russian language, its culture or its people. 

Instead, NATO is a threat to Russia's ambition to expand its borders through overt and covert forms of force against its neighbors.  This is absolutely true.

When we discuss this topic we should be phrasing things according to the relative perspectives.  From any reasonably rational examination of the facts, "NATO is not a threat to Russia".  From the Russian nationalist standpoint, which is also the official Russian government position, "NATO is a threat to Russian aggression".  To the extent someone views Russia as non-aggressive, then NATO isn't a threat.  To the extent someone views Russia as aggressive, then NATO is a threat.  There is no rational position for viewing Russia as non-aggressive and NATO as a threat.

Steve

[billbindc]

13 minutes ago, Huba said:

Putin openly said that territorial conquest is his goal. At least there's no more BS...

 

I think with that statement, the argument that NATO is a threat to Russia can be put away for good.

 

[Beleg85]

15 minutes ago, Huba said:

Putin openly said that territorial conquest is his goal. At least there's no more BS...

He laso said Peter The Great waged wars for 21 years and in the end was victorious, i.e. bring "back" the lands.

Poor Dymitrij Treninn, will be very hard to translate this into language understandable to Washington security establishment and sell as "valid security concerns".

Edited June 9, 2022 by Beleg85

[Hapless]

Javelin team gets a missile off, then comes under fire.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/v8qoiq/the_fgm148_javelin_operator_hits_an_enemy_target/

Few things I thought were interesting:

They get spotted real fast- looks like the missile might have a bit of a vapour trail (don't think Javelin usually has one, so could be the local conditions?)

There are at least two Javelin teams.

Hard to tell, but they don't look like they're bugging out as soon as the missile is fired. In theory they should be able to due to the fire and forget capability- so maybe they think it's safe enough to hang around, maybe they need to keep the AT capability up or maybe it's really hard to *not* watch your missile hit the target.

[Harmon Rabb]

18 minutes ago, Huba said:

Putin openly said that territorial conquest is his goal. At least there's no more BS...

 

Putin sympathizers: But what about Russia's legitimate security concerns?

Putin: I'm literally fighting a war for conquest of territory.

[G.I. Joe]

2 hours ago, Probus said:

Thanks @G.I. Joe. I thought something looked fishy.

Anytime! Yes, I did a bit of a double-take the first time myself. Definitely not a combination of aircraft you'd expect to see opposing each other in combat. Also, I think the Bronco itself is a bit unexpected in a modern thread...crewed, fixed-wing battlefield observation aircraft have definitely gone the way of the dreadnought.

[Vet 0369]

13 minutes ago, Hapless said:

Javelin team gets a missile off, then comes under fire.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/v8qoiq/the_fgm148_javelin_operator_hits_an_enemy_target/

Few things I thought were interesting:

They get spotted real fast- looks like the missile might have a bit of a vapour trail (don't think Javelin usually has one, so could be the local conditions?)

There are at least two Javelin teams.

Hard to tell, but they don't look like they're bugging out as soon as the missile is fired. In theory they should be able to due to the fire and forget capability- so maybe they think it's safe enough to hang around, maybe they need to keep the AT capability up or maybe it's really hard to *not* watch your missile hit the target.

That return fire was definitely small arm fire which tells me that the Russian infantry was very close already. I suspect that the Javelin teams didn’t properly reconnoiter the area to make sure it was free of Russian troops. Very bad move. If I was the Russian leader, I’d have my men immediately area-fire in the direction of the very audible launch. You should always be able to assume the AT weapon is in the best concealment it can find.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Vet 0369

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, Hapless said:

Javelin team gets a missile off, then comes under fire.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/v8qoiq/the_fgm148_javelin_operator_hits_an_enemy_target/

Few things I thought were interesting:

They get spotted real fast- looks like the missile might have a bit of a vapour trail (don't think Javelin usually has one, so could be the local conditions?)

There are at least two Javelin teams.

Hard to tell, but they don't look like they're bugging out as soon as the missile is fired. In theory they should be able to due to the fire and forget capability- so maybe they think it's safe enough to hang around, maybe they need to keep the AT capability up or maybe it's really hard to *not* watch your missile hit the target.

I good reminder for me to finally get around to posting "what part of FORGET in Fire and Forget did you guys not understand in training?".  Example after example we see Ukrainians lingering after popping off a Jav or NLAW.  The whole point of these extremely expensive weapons is to not be there when the enemy realizes what's going on.  Clearly something isn't getting into their heads.  I mean, not only are the teams firing the weapons remaining in position, but they are accompanied by buddies who have no reason to be there at all.

In this specific case it seems that there were some Russians with eyes on the woodline when the shot was fired.  The return fire was both rapid and accurate.  The range of the targets appears to be outside the range of small arms fire that accurate, so maybe there's some Russians closer than these guys thought.

Always remember, just because you don't see something doesn't mean it isn't there.  Combat Mission teaches that lesson quite well

Steve

[SeinfeldRules]

A rare (recorded) example of combined arms executed by the Russians as well, if they had infantry so readily in support

Edited June 9, 2022 by SeinfeldRules

[Battlefront.com]

13 hours ago, Grigb said:

Wagnerites and other PMCs used by Ry MOD are not truly mercenaries. They are contract soldiers whose losses Russian MOD does not need to report. 

During Chechen Wars Russians realized that even their elite infantry can suffer heavy losses hurting Russian military reputation (see Battle for Height 776 where Russian artillery destroyed vdv company). Instead of improving themselves they decided to create grey unit outside of the MOD, so the MOD can plausibly claim that the Russian military suffers no losses.   

The first time I heard about Wagner was in 2014 when they were sent in to clean up some of the "separatist" elements that were too criminal even by Putin's standards.  In particular his crew had been stopping Russian supply vehicles entering Ukraine and shaking them down, including stealing stuff to resell to civilians and other militias.  About a company had gone in with brand new Tigrs and laid siege to him.  I forget the callsign of the particular "leader", but there was a public plea by him as they were being attacked.  Several of his men were killed and he surrendered.  There were some videos and pictures of the Wagner column driving around taking care of Putin's business.

Anyway, I found this interesting tidbit in Dmitry's translation of the Russian 35th CAA veteran complaining about how bad things were around Izyum:

Quote

Wagner and Redut PMCs refused to assault the enemy positions in this area, saying they are not paid THAT MUCH money.

https://wartranslated.com/russian-35th-combined-arms-army-izyum-is-destroyed-by-its-own-command/

Steve

[MikeyD]

Quote

 they don't look like they're bugging out as soon as the missile is fired.

There's a hazard to waging war in the age of Twitter. Most notably sticking around in order to get a good video for posting later. A lot of these videos I think to myself 'Should there be something else for you to pay attention to at this moment?' Weren't Chechens mockingly referred to as 'Tik Tok soldiers', or something like that?