How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Centurian52]

On 6/10/2022 at 2:17 AM, panzermartin said:

In an ideal world countries wouldn't need defensive pacts or militaries to feel safe.

100% true. At least it is my view that the only justifiable use of an army is to deter other people from using their armies (and, if deterrence fails, to fight the ones that use their armies first). And the best possible world is one in which no one has any armies at all. But unfortunately that only works if everyone agrees to disarm. And that is extremely difficult because you need to convince everyone to trust everyone else to disarm, since it doesn't pay to be the only sucker in a world of potential aggressors. It's a perfect prisoner's dilemma.

[Battlefront.com]

Another thing that people in the West have been mentioning as a bad sign is Russia's increased EW activities that are hampering Ukrainian drones and communications.  I agree it's a bad sign, but I think it's more of a bad sign for Russia and not Ukraine.

Think about this logically.  Russia has had this EW capability since before the war, right?  And everybody was surprised it didn't use it hardly at all until recently, right?  Well, either Russia decided it didn't need to jam all those drones killing its forces or there was a reason why Russia had to hold off employing its full EW capabilities.

The reason floated by many during the first 3 months of the war is that Russia's own systems are not hardened against their own EW.  Which means if they strike out at Ukraine's capabilities they also harm their own.  And until now Russia has viewed that as an unacceptable outcome so they've been very conservative with EW.

Ask yourself, if this is correct then why would Russia suddenly start using its EW to a much greater extent?  Because it has engineered brand new communications and drone systems that are not vulnerable to their own EW?  Obviously not.  Is it because Ukraine has suddenly employed new capabilities that are so much worse than what Russia suffered through for 3 months that it decided to increase EW efforts to counter it?  I don't think so either.  I also think we can rule out that Russian senior command woke up one morning last week, realized nobody ordered EW to be used for 3 months and put out a corrective order.

So what would cause Russia to switch their EW strategy from largely passive to significantly active?

My guess is that the Russians have come to realize that Ukraine's capabilities are more of a threat to Russian activities than Russian capabilities are a threat to Ukraine's activities.  In my view this means Russia feels it has run out of options to deal with Ukraine's capabilities in some other way.  Now it feels it has no choice.

I view Russia feeling it has no choice as a good thing.  It's an act of desperation.

Steve

[Haiduk]

42 minutes ago, Cederic said:

We're back to Zelenskyy's referendum on any peace treaty. It was a genius move on many levels.

After Stambul Zelenskyi and his team got too much negative, so several pollings were conducted about peace and win conditions.  Last one for 18th of May showed 82 % of respondents reject the formula "peace for concessions", 10 % support and 8 % don't know. Zelenskyi got transparent warning from society that any concessions will be considered like betrayal with all bad consequenses for him. So, idea of referendum is not actual anymore. Zelenskyi with own idea of referendums for Donbas decision before a war and now just wanted to "wash own hands", because he fells too big responsinility for theese important decisions. Despite he decided to fight on 24th Feb instead to surrender and flee like expected his political opponents, he is antway afraid to assume a decision and want to hide for peoples decision if something go wrong or for strengthen own positions in front of westren leaders, which incline him to make concessions.  

Edited June 13, 2022 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

23 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Enemy destroyed the third bridge to Siverodonetsk, but as said the head of military administration Serhiy Haidai, the transport communication between Lysychansk and Siverodonetsl still exists

I'm with The_Capt on this one.  Russia is destroying these bridges because it has no intention of assaulting over the river.  Which underscores how wrong some of the Twitter guys are about what Severodonetsk means to the overall picture.  Without the bridges Severodonetsk is a dead end, not a new base of operations in the Donbas.

23 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

In last days we have several videos of different UKR artillery strikes on Russian ammunition storages and artillery positions. Maybe the number of 155 mm howitzers are gradually increasing and we now can reach with "longer hand" to this places, where enemy felt itself in safety. Ukr forces several times hit ammunition and logistic centers in Donetsk and also struck TV transmitter, so Russian channels disappeared and evem locally UKR TV-channels are available now.

Here is video, uploaded today, but related to 10th of June - reportedly UKR SOF, operating behind the enemy lines spotted enemy reduced Grad battery in 4 launchers near Boroven'ky village  9 km NE from Siverodonetsk. UKR artillery hit position, destroying 2 or 3 launchers

That Grad battery looked like it had been there for a while.  I think you're correct that some of the destruction we're seeing is from places that were previously "safe" until NATO 155 systems came into action.

Steve

[FancyCat]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Another thing that people in the West have been mentioning as a bad sign is Russia's increased EW activities that are hampering Ukrainian drones and communications.  I agree it's a bad sign, but I think it's more of a bad sign for Russia and not Ukraine.

Think about this logically.  Russia has had this EW capability since before the war, right?  And everybody was surprised it didn't use it hardly at all until recently, right?  Well, either Russia decided it didn't need to jam all those drones killing its forces or there was a reason why Russia had to hold off employing its full EW capabilities.

The reason floated by many during the first 3 months of the war is that Russia's own systems are not hardened against their own EW.  Which means if they strike out at Ukraine's capabilities they also harm their own.  And until now Russia has viewed that as an unacceptable outcome so they've been very conservative with EW.

Ask yourself, if this is correct then why would Russia suddenly start using its EW to a much greater extent?  Because it has engineered brand new communications and drone systems that are not vulnerable to their own EW?  Obviously not.  Is it because Ukraine has suddenly employed new capabilities that are so much worse than what Russia suffered through for 3 months that it decided to increase EW efforts to counter it?  I don't think so either.  I also think we can rule out that Russian senior command woke up one morning last week, realized nobody ordered EW to be used for 3 months and put out a corrective order.

So what would cause Russia to switch their EW strategy from largely passive to significantly active?

My guess is that the Russians have come to realize that Ukraine's capabilities are more of a threat to Russian activities than Russian capabilities are a threat to Ukraine's activities.  In my view this means Russia feels it has run out of options to deal with Ukraine's capabilities in some other way.  Now it feels it has no choice.

I view Russia feeling it has no choice as a good thing.  It's an act of desperation.

Steve

Didn't we see EW units moving out during the initial stages of the invasion? I wonder if the length and extent of the frontlines made it harder for EW to occur during this maneuver stage vs now. 

 

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

I'm with The_Capt on this one.  Russia is destroying these bridges because it has no intention of assaulting over the river.  Which underscores how wrong some of the Twitter guys are about what Severodonetsk means to the overall picture.  Without the bridges Severodonetsk is a dead end, not a new base of operations in the Donbas.

That Grad battery looked like it had been there for a while.  I think you're correct that some of the destruction we're seeing is from places that were previously "safe" until NATO 155 systems came into action.

Steve

Can't they use pontoon bridges? On that note, does Ukraine have any ability for crossing rivers? If not, wouldn't it be more likely it would be harder for Ukraine to do a offensive than Russia to do a offensive across rivers? 

[Haiduk]

5 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

On that note, does Ukraine have any ability for crossing rivers?

Of course, yes. It would be very strange, do not to have engineer units, maintaining a crossing with such dense grid of rivers )

Edited June 13, 2022 by Haiduk

[Huba]

11 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

After Stambul Zelenskyi and his team got too nuch negative, so several pollings were conducted about peace and win conditions.  Last one for 18th of May showed 82 % of respondents reject the formula "peace for concessions", 10 % support and 8 % don't know. Zelenskyi got transparent warning from society that any concessions will be considered like betrayal with all bad consequenses for him. So, idea of referendum is not actual anymore. Zelenskyi with own idea of referendums for Donbas decision before a war and now just wanted to "wash own hands", because he fells too big responsinility for theese important decisions. Despite he decided to fight on 24th Feb instead to surrender and flee like expected his political opponents, he is antway afraid to assume a decision and want to hide for peoples decision if something go wrong or for strength own positions before westren leaders, which incline him to make concessions.  

That is a great insight, nearly impossible to learn that as a foreigner. Thanks! 

[Centurian52]

On 6/10/2022 at 3:38 AM, Ultradave said:

Pres. Macron floated the idea of a "EU Army" and alliance a few years ago, when the US commitment to NATO was being held in doubt. Didn't go anywhere at all that I've seen since then and even at the time it seemed to be greeted with yawns.

Dave

It did create some alarm in the US that Orange Putin was alienating our allies though.

[FancyCat]

40 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think many in the occupied Donbas are now seeing the true face of Russia and not liking it at all.  However, I would be surprised if this changed people to having a favorable view of Ukraine.  That would mean admitting being wrong, and people do not like to do that.

Yes, it does seem that pro-Russians outside of Russia for some reason don't want to live in Russia.  Which I have always found humorous because it is an admission that they really prefer the country they are currently in more than Russia.

Steve

Most of the Russian elite including those ridiculous tv personalities railing against the West have assets, homes, citizenships in the West so its funny as hell to hear them lambast the West even as they fight to retain their assets, homes and access to the West privately. 

[panzermartin]

18 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

100% true. At least it is my view that the only justifiable use of an army is to deter other people from using their armies (and, if deterrence fails, to fight the ones that use their armies first). And the best possible world is one in which no one has any armies at all. But unfortunately that only works if everyone agrees to disarm. And that is extremely difficult because you need to convince everyone to trust everyone else to disarm, since it doesn't pay to be the only sucker in a world of potential aggressors. It's a perfect prisoner's dilemma.

Yes of course. Some point in the distant future this will probably happen. I hope nothing really ugly happens before that to force us to global disarmament. Given the current situation that we are back in increasing nuclear arsenal that point in the future took at least a 100yrs forward bonus

[Haiduk]

Sosnove village, 4 km north from Sviatohirsk, Donetsk oblast. Data of strike unknown

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Didn't we see EW units moving out during the initial stages of the invasion? I wonder if the length and extent of the frontlines made it harder for EW to occur during this maneuver stage vs now. 

For sure they deployed assets at the very start and lost quite a few.  Oryx shows 8 "jammers" on light AFVs and 9 dedicated systems documented lost:

Jammers And Deception Systems (9, of which destroyed: 5, damaged: 2, captured: 2)

For sure the shortening of the front has helped, but the front has largely been like this for 1-2 months.  So it doesn't explain why they started using it now.

14 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Can't they use pontoon bridges? On that note, does Ukraine have any ability for crossing rivers? If not, wouldn't it be more likely it would be harder for Ukraine to do a offensive than Russia to do a offensive across rivers? 

Haiduk already addressed the first question.  Yes, a bridging operation by either side would be extremely risky, which is why Russia destroying the bridges seems to indicate that they will be content with NOT crossing the river.

Steve

[Calamine Waffles]

30 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

After Stambul Zelenskyi and his team got too much negative, so several pollings were conducted about peace and win conditions.  Last one for 18th of May showed 82 % of respondents reject the formula "peace for concessions", 10 % support and 8 % don't know. Zelenskyi got transparent warning from society that any concessions will be considered like betrayal with all bad consequenses for him. So, idea of referendum is not actual anymore. Zelenskyi with own idea of referendums for Donbas decision before a war and now just wanted to "wash own hands", because he fells too big responsinility for theese important decisions. Despite he decided to fight on 24th Feb instead to surrender and flee like expected his political opponents, he is antway afraid to assume a decision and want to hide for peoples decision if something go wrong or for strengthen own positions in front of westren leaders, which incline him to make concessions.  

It's perfectly fine for Zelenskyy this way. The West can't force him to make concessions if the overwhelming majority of his population don't want to, lest they forsake the democratic values the West claims to uphold. 

  

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

For sure they deployed assets at the very start and lost quite a few.  Oryx shows 8 "jammers" on light AFVs and 9 dedicated systems documented lost:

Jammers And Deception Systems (9, of which destroyed: 5, damaged: 2, captured: 2)

For sure the shortening of the front has helped, but the front has largely been like this for 1-2 months.  So it doesn't explain why they started using it now.

Haiduk already addressed the first question.  Yes, a bridging operation by either side would be extremely risky, which is why Russia destroying the bridges seems to indicate that they will be content with NOT crossing the river.

Steve

Jamming/EW assets are also something you don't want to use as much as possible, especially with all the eyes of your potential enemies trained on you, because


 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Calamine Waffles

[poesel]

6 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Ukrainian society will curse and even overthrow anybody, who will agree to trade our lands for peace. 

I take that as a 'no'

Thank you for your answer. I was very happy to hear that although that might not be the right word in this context.

Also your remarks about the loyalties of the people in occupied Donbas are very interesting. I guess for people in difficult situations the name of the king doesn't matter much. I hope that at least the next generation there will see the advantages of living in a democratic Ukraine.

[cesmonkey]

I didn't read that NYT article the other day complaining about the lack of visibility into Ukraine's military operations by US intelligence. That's because I'm not a NYT subscriber.

However, the NYT does offer a free podcast and today they looked at that same issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/podcasts/the-daily/ukraine-war-intelligence.html

The reporter's argument is that Ukraine should provide more information to the US in order for the US to know whether the aid they are providing is being properly used - and what is truly needed. 

I'm not sure I agree.
 

[Huba]

And ideally on the topic of liberating Donbas and Crimea, Zelensky's speech from today. Definitely maximalst goals are pursued:

 

[slysniper]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yeah, this gets back to a discussion we had many hundreds of pages ago.  Tanks, as we know them, are going to be phased out in our ilfetime.  They are too big, too expensive, and now too vulnerable.  The key element, though, is that there is a viable replacement for them.  That's the nail in their coffin.

IFV/APCs are going to see something similar, but inherently we'll still have an armored vehicle that carries people.  I just don't think it will resemble what countries have on hand now.  I picture something that is able to withstand top attacks, for a start, and doesn't necessarily have an inherent ability to directly support its dismounts.  In other words, a heavily armored "battlefield taxi" with the offensive weapons systems held by UGVs.

Steve

I was listening to a soldier that had worked on the exo skeleton (robotnics) program that seem to be also in the possible future as to men and warfare.

But its another aspect of future transport. Once you start to enhance a man by having to wear such a thing, how much room does he take to transport and how much gear does he have.

needless to say, all the high tech stuff has its own logistics that will need to be created as to how its supported.

 

But for sure, this war is showing armor as nothing more than targets to be detroyed.

Because, can anyone point out one battle in ths war where armor units have been used to be a important factor as to the success of the battle yet. 

They have become a tool to use against civilians more than anything else.

[Artkin]

Is this a T-80U with the BVM side armor package? 

 

[poesel]

Why Russia is so dead set on owning Sjewjerodonetsk (and sorry, if that is already clear to everyone):

First, Russia has declared that it has 'liberated' the city.
Second, it is the last mayor city in Luhansk oblast (there is of course Lyssytschansk, too, but than be explained away)
Third, as soon as Luhansk is 'fully' 'liberated' there will be a referendum or some other puppet show that will result in LPR being annexed by Russia.
Fourth, now that LPR is actually Russia, Ukraine is directly attacking into Russia. Which has domestic political benefits for Russia wrt raising more troops.

Problem is that of course the first step was a bit hasty and now that has to be fixed at all costs.

I also prophesize that the end is nigh for Russia if that referendum starts without having Sjewjerodonetsk. That means that Russia doesn't expect to get it in the near future and has run out of options.

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, slysniper said:

I was listening to a soldier that had worked on the exo skeleton (robotnics) program that seem to be also in the possible future as to men and warfare.

But its another aspect of future transport. Once you start to enhance a man by having to wear such a thing, how much room does he take to transport and how much gear does he have.

Independent exoskeletons are probably a ways away from being fielded, similar to other high energy consuming products.  So for the near term I don't see that having any impact on transport design.

However, I do see "tethered" exoskeletons are likely coming to the battlefield in the not too distant future.  These will allow for rapid and low manpower cross loading without having to worry about self contained power.

12 minutes ago, slysniper said:

needless to say, all the high tech stuff has its own logistics that will need to be created as to how its supported.

We will need a lot more nerds in camo uniforms, that's for sure

12 minutes ago, slysniper said:

But for sure, this war is showing armor as nothing more than targets to be detroyed.

Because, can anyone point out one battle in ths war where armor units have been used to be a important factor as to the success of the battle yet. 

They have become a tool to use against civilians more than anything else.

I think there are plenty of instances to show that armored vehicles still have a significant impact on the battlefield, however it's mostly because there's nothing else to substitute for them yet.  Still, I think at the end of this war the bean counters are going to conclude that they weren't worth the cost.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, poesel said:

Why Russia is so dead set on owning Sjewjerodonetsk (and sorry, if that is already clear to everyone):

First, Russia has declared that it has 'liberated' the city.
Second, it is the last mayor city in Luhansk oblast (there is of course Lyssytschansk, too, but than be explained away)
Third, as soon as Luhansk is 'fully' 'liberated' there will be a referendum or some other puppet show that will result in LPR being annexed by Russia.
Fourth, now that LPR is actually Russia, Ukraine is directly attacking into Russia. Which has domestic political benefits for Russia wrt raising more troops.

Problem is that of course the first step was a bit hasty and now that has to be fixed at all costs.

I also prophesize that the end is nigh for Russia if that referendum starts without having Sjewjerodonetsk. That means that Russia doesn't expect to get it in the near future and has run out of options.

All true, but all unnecessary to achieve by frontal assault.  If Russia had instead invested the forces fighting in Severodonetsk into Popasna they could have theoretically taken the city from the rear by cutting it off and starving it out.  But just like in Mariupol, Russia seems to be in a rush to claim victory and so frontal assault it is.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Speaking of EW...

 

[Battlefront.com]

Great video showing how a T-80 is reloaded:

 

[Battlefront.com]

And another Lithuanian related note.  4 on way to Ukraine right now, more on the way over next 2 months.  Do you think Lithuania needed to have NATO tell it to do this?  Nope.   If Russia had been a good neighbor to Lithuania instead of a major threat, do you think Lithuanians would be doing this?  Nope again.  See, NATO isn't the problem here

 

[Huba]

Great as always, Gen. Mark Hertling says that support for UA comes as quick as possible, with logistics and training being the limiting factor. Hints that more HIMARS should be included in next support batch. 

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Huba