Russia-Ukrainian War

[mcliu]

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/ukrainian-military-unit-russia-artillery-1365021/

 

A big part of the problem in defending this part of Donbas, Ostap believes, is that the people who have stayed behind — the people who haven’t fled — don’t really believe they are part of Ukraine. In his view, the civilians who remain are all separatist sympathizers. He says they help the Russians navigate backcountry roads that aren’t on the maps.

“Yeah, they’re all waiting for Russkiy mir,” Mace says, laughing when I ask his opinion about the locals. Russkiy mir, or “Russian world,” is the revanchist concept that Russia needs to restore its central role in the affairs of its neighbors, and its borders, to what they were at the height of the Soviet empire.

He asserts there have been instances of local collaborators getting caught providing information about Ukrainian troop movements or locations. Indeed, Slovyansk fell to Russian separatists in 2014: The retaking of the city by the Ukrainian military later that summer was the first major battle in Donbas.

“Almost everyone here is pro-Russian. But you can’t arrest people just for that,” Mace says. In any case, the police and the SBU —Ukraine’s internal security service — were doing what they could. “The SBU even arrested a couple of people in our brigade,” he says.

[Spekulatius]

Looks like the Ukraine will join the EU sooner than I expected:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/eu-united-support-ukraines-candidacy-083757335.html

[aws]

It's been a good week for charity auctions. First Buffett's lunch sells for $19 million, and now a charity auction to benefit Ukranian refugee children reached over $100 million. The auction was for Dmitry Muratov's Nobel Peace Prize, with 100% of the proceeds benefitting UNICEF. They did a live stream of the auction, which if you watch starting from around the 50:00 mark is behaving like a normal auction with 100k and 200k incrementing bids, until one bidder goes straight to 103.5 million.

 

 

[Xerxes]

From an article from The Economist on nuclear taboo. depending how brainwashed you are, you may have different perspective. 
 

[Blugolds11]

wow @Xerxes....I find that shocking and disturbing. Its hard to believe, not only Americans, but the Brits, French and Israelis...I guess the Israelis dont really surprise me...but the fact that the use of Nuclear weapons would be socially accepted in general, and that 20k lives justify 2M deaths..

 

Without looking into the study for more detail my initial questions would be details on the subjects polled. Age, socioeconomic, education etc. Size of the group. Explanation of "nuclear weapons" given to the subjects. Are we describing another Hiroshima scenario, or were these "tactical" nukes like we have heard about recently that are nuclear in nature but conventional in damage (not that it makes a difference in MY answer). 

 

Interesting thought...if Zalensky had access to a nuclear weapon do you think HE would use it? Would he be justified?

[Dinar]

53 minutes ago, Blugolds11 said:

wow @Xerxes....I find that shocking and disturbing. Its hard to believe, not only Americans, but the Brits, French and Israelis...I guess the Israelis dont really surprise me...but the fact that the use of Nuclear weapons would be socially accepted in general, and that 20k lives justify 2M deaths..

 

Without looking into the study for more detail my initial questions would be details on the subjects polled. Age, socioeconomic, education etc. Size of the group. Explanation of "nuclear weapons" given to the subjects. Are we describing another Hiroshima scenario, or were these "tactical" nukes like we have heard about recently that are nuclear in nature but conventional in damage (not that it makes a difference in MY answer). 

 

Interesting thought...if Zalensky had access to a nuclear weapon do you think HE would use it? Would he be justified?

Just out of curiosity, why British, French or American response is shocking but Israel's is not?

[Xerxes]

Actually I do sympathize with the Israeli. Deterrence: holocaust to prevent a holocaust. 
 

The French and others would not be out of nessacity but rather out of pride. But then again we have seen the French lose a fight in indochina in an era where nuclear was not so taboo, but yet they didn’t use it. 
 

French fight to keep its colony in indochina was not so different than Moscow’ bid for Ukraine. 

[no_free_lunch]

I think you seriously underestimate the hurdle to use nuclear weapons.  To try to compare some street survey to what a super-power will do is just silly.

[Gregmal]

Slightly different take than what most here are deepthroating 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Gregmal

[Xerxes]

12 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

I think you seriously underestimate the hurdle to use nuclear weapons.  To try to compare some street survey to what a super-power will do is just silly.

You are not wrong, except that we are not talking about government’ hurdle which is pretty high as you said. 
 

we are talking what an average Joe thinks in the West. We all talk about what an average Ivan thinks in Russia. Their support (or rather silence) for Moscow’ savage war. 
 

But that I can understand. Russian society is not exactly an open and free society where you expect the Ivans to have a balanced view. 
 

But average Joes in the West don’t have that problem. They are free to consume whatever media they like. Yet …

[Spekulatius]

12 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

I think you seriously underestimate the hurdle to use nuclear weapons.  To try to compare some street survey to what a super-power will do is just silly.

Furthermore , it is important to note that Russia officially is not in a war yet. We are still talking about a "special operation here", per Russia's official messaging. So there is zero risk of a nuclear escalation right now.

[Xerxes]

22 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Furthermore , it is important to note that Russia officially is not in a war yet. We are still talking about a "special operation here", per Russia's official messaging. So there is zero risk of a nuclear escalation right now.

totally irrelevant. 
 

McArthur was ready to go nuclear in Manchuria, yet no state of war existed between PRC and the US. 
 

That said in the current situation, unlikely, …. until the day it isn’t. 

[Spekulatius]

47 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

totally irrelevant. 
 

McArthur was ready to go nuclear in Manchuria, yet no state of war existed between PRC and the US. 
 

That said in the current situation, unlikely, …. until the day it isn’t. 

Mc Arthur was not president. I am sure the Russians are playing all sort of war games in their operations room, including nuclear strikes. Those are irrelevant as well.

 

Anyays, Putin screwed himself - NATO has no expanded to Finland and Sweden, which are very capable.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/29/russia-ukraine-live-updates.html

 

With Finland (North) , the Baltics, Black Sea under NATO can easily throttle any Russian fleet movements except from Vladivostok on a moments notice.

 

The long range rockets that were given to Ukraine have enough reach to get to Snake Island where  the Russians intent to block the Odessa port traffic. So the Russian should not get too comfortable there.

 

Donbas is tough for the Ukraine as the Russian now wear them out with artillery. So west needs to supply the Ukraine with enough artillery to match. US/ NATO artillery has 2x the reach of Russian artillery and have guided ammo, so should be possible to counter it, given enough quantity.

 

FWIW, I expect Russian arms exports to drop substantially because they can't deliver spare parts and the performance  of their weapons is abysmal on the battle field.

 

 

[Xerxes]

I don’t disagree with paragraph 1-6

 

Except that Mcarthur, while not president, was very much the proconsul reigning over Asia and his ideas were beyond war games.
 

If I recall he got fired for getting under Truman skin … but not because Truman feared some sort nuclear holocaust in Manchuria or the morality of it. 

[Spekulatius]

This makes sense. Germany needs all the LNG tanker they can get:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/29/ftse-100-markets-live-news-inflation-prices-russia-gas/

I guess we call this a lease cancellation.

 

@Xerxes As for the Mc Arthur story - the job of a general is a different one than as politician. A general / commander in chief needs to lay the options out there.  If he got A, B and C at the disposal, and A is a nuclear strike, it's probably his job to present this scenario.

 

It's up the the politician to decide which of the options is viable. I think this happens pretty much every conflict. I bet Eisenhower as general had different thought process than Eisenhower as a president.

[Xerxes]

Agree on jobs being different in a normal situation involving normal people. That is why Eisenhower was able to make the transition to civilian life into the highest office. 

 

contrast that to a character like McArthur, who reigned like a sovereign, over Japan and Korea. if I recall it was close to 10 years after he set foot back in the U.S. after being fired. That is how much he didn’t care about. 
 

McArthur was so powerful that even his direct solid line boss General Bradly who was the chairman of Joint Chiefs had no control on him. I may remember wrong but i believe Bradly was promoted to a five-star general when he became chairman so that he was not outranked by Mcarthur (a technical subordinate) also another five-star general.  

all this to say that Mcarthur was a character and his powers were immense. 

[Spekulatius]

10 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

Agree on jobs being different in a normal situation involving normal people. That is why Eisenhower was able to make the transition to civilian life into the highest office. 

 

contrast that to a character like McArthur, who reigned like a sovereign, over Japan and Korea. if I recall it was close to 10 years after he set foot back in the U.S. after being fired. That is how much he didn’t care about. 
 

McArthur was so powerful that even his direct solid line boss General Bradly who was the chairman of Joint Chiefs had no control on him. I may remember wrong but i believe Bradly was promoted to a five-star general when he became chairman so that he was not outranked by Mcarthur (a technical subordinate) also another five-star general.  

all this to say that Mcarthur was a character and his powers were immense. 

I think the Hardcore history podcast has some anecdotes about him. Quite some  characters in the US army with McArthur and Patton. There was a reason why the otherwise unremarkable Bradley was commander in the European theatre and not Patton.

[Xerxes]

10 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Slightly different take than what most here are deepthroating 

Thanks for posting. I read the whole thread, but my understanding of what is happening (in my limited ability to discern) seems to be different than this guy. 
 

He seem to suggest that the Russian army performance is like the German panzer divisions slicing through the Ardennes forest, surprising the allies in their mobility and audacity. 
 

The strategic ambitions of Kremlin was surprising but so was their shortcomings. Granted they are an artillery-based army, so incrementally they are doing much better now than they did back in March. 

[Xerxes]

24 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

I think the Hardcore history podcast has some anecdotes about him. Quite some  characters in the US army with McArthur and Patton. There was a reason why the otherwise unremarkable Bradley was commander in the European theatre and not Patton.

They needed a Tim Cook and not a Steve Jobs at that stage … lol

[no_free_lunch]

5 hours ago, Xerxes said:

You are not wrong, except that we are not talking about government’ hurdle which is pretty high as you said. 
 

we are talking what an average Joe thinks in the West. We all talk about what an average Ivan thinks in Russia. Their support (or rather silence) for Moscow’ savage war. 
 

But that I can understand. Russian society is not exactly an open and free society where you expect the Ivans to have a balanced view. 
 

But average Joes in the West don’t have that problem. They are free to consume whatever media they like. Yet …

 

To get in the specifics of the poll and just based on the terse article I saw, I question whether it's the same as Ukraine Russia.   The poll was around how America would respond to a pre-emptive attack on a nuclear aircraft carrier.  Those things have 5000+ personnel.  It would be the equivalent of a pearl harbor.  Not the same as Ukraine siding closer to NATO at all, in my opinion.

[Xerxes]

33 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

 

To get in the specifics of the poll and just based on the terse article I saw, I question whether it's the same as Ukraine Russia.   The poll was around how America would respond to a pre-emptive attack on a nuclear aircraft carrier.  Those things have 5000+ personnel.  It would be the equivalent of a pearl harbor.  Not the same as Ukraine siding closer to NATO at all, in my opinion.

 

it doesn’t matter how a war starts. Once started it takes a life of its own. What the hell a U.S. aircraft carrier is doing in the Persian Gulf ... anyways … you can comment on technicality how they are different I don’t see it. Western average joes can be as bloodthirsty as eastern Ivans. Only difference is the Ivan’s doesn’t know better whereas the average joe is just deluded and brainwashed. 

 

Iran-Iraq war was started with a full scale Iraqi invasion but Iran played a role in extending that war and is as guilty as Iraq. So does it really matter if technically Iraq started the war. 
 

Will file this under our “agree to disagree” bucket. 

[Spekulatius]

1 hour ago, Xerxes said:

Thanks for posting. I read the whole thread, but my understanding of what is happening (in my limited ability to discern) seems to be different than this guy. 
 

He seem to suggest that the Russian army performance is like the German panzer divisions slicing through the Ardennes forest, surprising the allies in their mobility and audacity. 
 

The strategic ambitions of Kremlin was surprising but so was their shortcomings. Granted they are an artillery-based army, so incrementally they are doing much better now than they did back in March. 

Russian are grinding it out mostly with overwhelming artillery, they are not slicing through anything. The slow progress is proof of this. The Russians tried the Blitzkrieg when trying to take Kiev, but instead it sort of evolved into a bum rush.

 

For good analysis, try Michael Clarks analysis in Sky news (available on youtube):

https://news.sky.com/video/ukraine-your-questions-answered-by-professor-michael-clarke-12629662

 

Give the Ukrainians enough artillery and the russians will get anhillated.

 

Note that the artillery wars tipped in Russia's favor because the Ukrainians are running out of 152mm artillery shells. Even the NATO stockpiles that were supplied to the Ukraine ran out as those are only produced in Russia.

So the Ukrainian native artillery is mostly not active any more since it ran out of ammo. The West has replaced some of this with qualitatively better one but it's not enough.

 

This WW1 without artillery on one side. Even fortified positions will eventually been ground down under prolonged barrages. That's what the Russians are doing.

 

The west needs to supply hundreds of artillery pieces to the Ukraine not dozens.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Spekulatius

[shhughes1116]

18 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Slightly different take than what most here are deepthroating 

Amazing.  I just read a puff-piece from an Indian defense “journal” and the content is identical, down to the grammatical errors. 
 

Ukraine did not have a large standing army. About 90k active duty guys in the Donbas right before the war started, serving a one year stint, along with “8 classes” of reservists who served their one-year stint in the Donbas between 2014 and 2022.  Takes time to mobilize troops, re-train them,  get them equipment.  Their posture in the Donbas reflects this situation - they needed a way to soak up Russian pressure while they mobilize the population to fight back.  And how do you soak up pressure?  Heavy  on fortifications and fixed positions,  multiple lines of defense, willingness to trade territory for time, and fight your enemy in places where you take away their advantage (i.e. urban areas where the use of artillery creates even better defensive opportunities, and where you can cuddle up right next to the enemy line so he can’t bring in his heavy artillery).

 

You know the problem with being an artillery-heavy army that uses very imprecise weapons?  You need lots of 152mm shells and 122mm rockets - mountains of them.  And given how military logistics work, you need to stockpile those shells and rockets about 15km - 30km behind your lines, and for Russia, close to a rail head.   And to move those munitions to your forward firing positions, you need lots and lots of trucks.  Lots and lots of trucks are hard to hide - makes it easy to find munition dumps.  Have you noticed a number of videos recently of explosions at munitions dumps behind the Russian lines?  Easy to identify given the secondary explosions - you can literally see the 122mm Grad rockets firing off like fireworks.  An artillery tube without shells is worthless.  Infantry attacking fixed fortifications without artillery support are either dead, or soon to be dead.  
 

You know the other problem with being an artillery heavy army?  You need lots of replacement barrels.  Each barrel can fire a certain number of shells before it degrades.  As it degrades, it looses accuracy.  Eventually, it will likely cause a shell to detonate in the tube, killing the crew.  Specialized industrial machinery is needed to build replacement barrels.  You need lots of trucks to move these barrels to the front.    You need specialized equipment at the front to replace these barrels.  And these barrels are shipped with the munitions.  So when the munitions dump goes boom-boom-boom, what do you think happens to the replacement barrels?

 

But don’t take my word for it on this.  Why do you think Russia is rolling out T-62s from long-term storage and using them for indirect fire?  Could it be because they are running out of everything but 1960’s era 105mm barrels and shells?   Why do you think Russia is mobilizing stocks of Soviet-era 152mm shells and 122mm rockets from Belarus?  Could it be because they have less than expected in storage and a lack of industrial capacity to produce enough?  
 

While this is going on in the background, Ukraine is using the new M142s and M270/ to hit Russian C&C locations.  
 

Don’t get me wrong. There is plenty more dying to happen on both sides.  And there is plenty of propaganda BS on both sides.   But the Ukrainians are hitting the exponential curve upwards on mobilization.  This will go even faster now that the UK has agreed to train two brigades of troops per quarter.  Every strike on civilians creates a new father or mother that has nothing to live for but death and destruction to the Russian invader. Every kidnapping and torture in Russian-occupied Ukraine creates a new partisan willing to slaughter Russian soldiers in the rear areas and collaborators.  
 

Before this is done, I suspect we are going to see the Russian army fall apart.  

 

 

[aws]

It's hard to take anyone talking about Russian military might seriously. All you have to do is look at a map and you see they control much mess Ukrainian territory than they did three months ago. What they have managed to do is bumble their way into a strategy that temporarily plays into their strengths. They have more artillery and can outrange the Ukrainians, so by staying at maximum firing range they can completely level the towns they are trying to eventually occupy, and by grinding attrition they make small gains. And then they play it off like this was all part of the master plan, where going for a direct assault on Kyiv was all a feint, even though it cost them thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks.

 

While they are taking some towns in the Donbass, but it's not even clear whether they are making net progress, or if they are losing more in the south than they are taking in the east. And with more advanced weaponry evening the playing field, it's tough to imagine this dynamic continuing for much longer.

 

And even if it does, how much does it play to their advantage to completely destroy the hometowns of the most Russian leaning areas of Ukraine? Not only does it make later administration much more difficult, but they are surely turning many people that were sitting on the fence into lifelong haters of the Russians. I've seen more reports lately of partisans attacks in the occupied areas, which is yet another thing for the Russians and their collaborators to worry about.

 

You have 40 million Ukrainians fighting against 200,000 invaders. Obviously they aren't all soldiers, but subdivide it anyway you want and it's still a huge discrepancy. 20 million men, 10 million fighting age, some smaller number with military training and equipment, but anyway you look at it this invasion force seems incapable of winning the long fight as the numbers will get more and more skewed. Ukrainians will be able to reinforce and grow their fighting force over time while Russia's will be depleted. 

[Spekulatius]

On 6/29/2022 at 10:12 AM, Spekulatius said:

The long range rockets that were given to Ukraine have enough reach to get to Snake Island where  the Russians intent to block the Odessa port traffic. So the Russian should not get too comfortable there.

 

 

 

 

That didn't take long. Snake Island becomes indefensible for the Russians with the delivery of some HIMARS rocket system. Snake island is about 60 km away from the Ukraine mainland and these rocket systems go for 70km (the longer range version goes 200km. game over for the Russians on Snake Island. Not a huge win right now, but is important to keep Odessa from staying blocked longer term potentially.

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1108855805/russia-withdraws-snake-island-ukraine

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-long-range-rocket-systems-arrive-ukraine-minister-2022-06-23/

 

If we give the Ukraine rocket weapons systems that go somewhat further (~300km) then Russia can not safely move ships into Sebastopol harbor any more (distance  from Sebastopol harbor to Ukraine mainland is ~280km). At that point, Crimea and Sebastopol would become more or less strategically worthless as a naval base during war times.

 

Russia has been firing nilly willy with rocket bases from Crimea and with their Ships on the Ukraine mainland and that cannot be allowed forever.