Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War

[ThirstyBarbarian]

"A cat that sits on a hot stove lid will never do that again. But it will never sit on a cold stove lid either." -Mark Twain

Like the cat, I think we need to be careful about what lessons we're learning from the war. Russia made some hideous strategic errors, and some of those are echoing to the present. I would guess that some of that is because the Russian armed forces were looted from within before the war even started. A few that I think bear repeating:

* Invading in the first place. They're going into a country much larger and more populous than Iraq with a smaller army than the US went in there with. It was always going to be hard to impossible hold the country if the war went on for more than a week or two. Now they're the dog that caught the car and they're having a lot of trouble.
* Failure to establish air superiority. There's a reason why the US utterly destroys air defenses in the first few days of a conflict. If Russia could fly over Ukraine with impunity, the Bayraktars and other larger drones would be useless. The Russians can't fly high because of the S300 systems and can't fly low because of MANPADS. If every S300 was a smoking hole in the ground, then they'd have a much easier time of it.
* Lack of precision munitions/major failures in targeting. I saw a stat that something like 20% of Russian airstrikes hit their targets, compared to ~80% for NATO. With a modern military, the Russians would be able to destroy all of Ukraine's command posts and the major routes that NATO is using to ship weapons in. Also, they used what was billed as a hypersonic missile to destroy ... a shopping center. What a waste of resources.
* Lack of communication between units. At least so far, Russia seems to be unable to mount combined arms offensives. In some areas, they were also apparently unable to get more than 2-3 BTGs on the road at the same time.
* And, of course, the logistics. You can't fight if you've got no fuel, food, or ammunition.

All that said, I take your point that ATGMs and MANPADS systems are making life an awful lot harder for the Russians. Hobby-scale quadcopters are also amazing for recon. We definitely need to rethink how those factors play in to our own future war plans.

I agree all of these Russian blunders are major factors. For that last post, I was mostly thinking in terms of the earlier “super weapon” discussion. It think the most consequential weapons have not been what we would usually think of as super weapons. They have been relatively inexpensive ATGs, MANPADS, and drones of different kinds, and on the high end, home-grown cruise missiles and the high-altitude air-defense missiles. I think that’s where 21st century war is heading.

 

[Dotini]

I agree all of these Russian blunders are major factors. For that last post, I was mostly thinking in terms of the earlier “super weapon” discussion. It think the most consequential weapons have not been what we would usually think of as super weapons. They have been relatively inexpensive ATGs, MANPADS, and drones of different kinds, and on the high end, home-grown cruise missiles and the high-altitude air-defense missiles. I think that’s where 21st century war is heading.

I know nothing much about weapons of war. The Vietnam draft missed me. But one crucial "weapon system" that has not been mentioned (that I know of), is that of the swarms of reconnaissance satellites providing continuous targeting information. And the Russians have no way that I know of to knock them down. IMHO this is a major advantage.

 

[tim cubbedge]

Interesting.

There was one thread that I made some contributions to recently that seems to have disappeared entirely. I was wondering if it was deleted but now I’m wondering if I was subject to that treatment.

I’d find it surprising if I was, given what I though was my mild wording just prior to that happening. But I’m also not uber-concerned about it, I figure everyone gets moderated eventually.

Not necessarily demanding an answer on that since this is obviously the wrong thread for that, just musing.

If you’re banned from a thread, it’s still visible, you just can’t post. If you can’t find thread, it was probably pulled from public view.

 

[rocket_troy]

And the Russians have no way that I know of to knock them down. IMHO this is a major advantage.

I'm pretty sure they do, as does China, as does India, as does Israel and probably others. It's the testing of this capability that has lead to much of the debate over space debris.
The primary deterrent against this action would be the invoking of a war against the owner (nation) of the sat.

TP

 

[boatgeek]

I'm pretty sure they do, as does China, as does India, as does Israel and probably others. It's the testing of this capability that has lead to much of the debate over space debris.
The primary deterrent against this action would be the invoking of a war against the owner (nation) of the sat.

TP

The Russians nominally have the ability to knock down some satellites, but the Starlink system is apparently working wonders in the Ukrainian army's ability to call in artillery. I don't think that Russia can knock down hundreds to thousands of satellites.

 

[rocket_troy]

The Russians nominally have the ability to knock down some satellites, but the Starlink system is apparently working wonders in the Ukrainian army's ability to call in artillery. I don't think that Russia can knock down hundreds to thousands of satellites.

You're both correct. I misread the "swarms" bit

TP

 

[kuririn]

US has recon satellites but so do the Russians.

 

[smstachwick]

If you’re banned from a thread, it’s still visible, you just can’t post. If you can’t find thread, it was probably pulled from public view.

Good to know. Thanks for being transparent, that’s always appreciated.

 

[smstachwick]

The Russians nominally have the ability to knock down some satellites, but the Starlink system is apparently working wonders in the Ukrainian army's ability to call in artillery. I don't think that Russia can knock down hundreds to thousands of satellites.

I would guess that the main anti-satellite capabilities are electromagnetic spectrum interference and cyberwarfare, blinding or jamming satellites without risking Kessler syndrome.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
Then again, there are always good old-fashioned deception and counter-intelligence operations designed with satellite capabilities in mind, but the Russians have been failing hilariously with those.

 

[teepot]

I don’t think there are any super weapons in the pipeline for Ukraine. I think it’s mostly going to be standard NATO conventional gear. It might advance to some of our more sophisticated systems over time, but probably nothing revolutionary. I actually think it would be better if Ukraine could beat Russia with just the standard NATO stuff.

What I meant by super weapons was more like HIMARS, Harpoon, Patriot, Abrams, Reaper. Our good stuff that it takes months to train on.

 

[Sooner Boomer]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...rmobaric-artillery-strike-recorded-in-ukraine

 

[georgegassaway]

I know nothing much about weapons of war. The Vietnam draft missed me. But one crucial "weapon system" that has not been mentioned (that I know of), is that of the swarms of reconnaissance satellites providing continuous targeting information. And the Russians have no way that I know of to knock them down. IMHO this is a major advantage.

The Russians nominally have the ability to knock down some satellites, but the Starlink system is apparently working wonders in the Ukrainian army's ability to call in artillery. I don't think that Russia can knock down hundreds to thousands of satellites.

Please note, that Starlink is a communicaitons system, ostensibly computer data/internet. They have no cameras or imaging systems.

Reconnaisance satellites are a totally different thing, most with cameras, others with radar imaging, and other sensors depending on the satellite's mission requirements.

Anyway, operational U.S. recon sats are likely more in the dozens, and the biggest with the best resolution likely less than 10. Would be easier to take out that relatively small number, but I am not saying it would be "easy" to do in any case.

What Starlink is instrumental in doing is keeping Ukraine's internet going, despite local outages due to war, and vast areas that did not have much if any infrastructure to begin with (as in between cities). as well as pressed into service in place of cell phones when no service is available.

An early modification to Starlink, for Ukraine, was a software patch (to the receivers, if not the satellites too) to give receivers the capability to communicate in a moving vehicle.

So any "continuing target communication" is not RECONNAISANCE from Starlink satellites. The Recon or targeting source of such information is coming from elsewhere, and that info is being communicated from someone else, using Starlink to deliver it.

 

[tsmmiller]

Yes, I believe they are. And it's supposedly to be against the Russian line advancing (slowly) west along the coastal regions toward Odesa. The preparations are massive, but slow, it's said. IMHO this is 100% critical for any kind of satisfactory outcome for Ukraine. We really need to keep Odesa out of Russian hands.

My first trip into Odesa was early 2001. The city still showed very much of the neglect the wonderful Russia had given the place. Decrepit buildings and streets. Decay almost everywhere. In the 20 plus years since it has become IMO quite a jewel. Be a shame for Russia to ruin once again. So…1000 points to “We really need to keep Odesa out of Russian hands.”

 

[teepot]

I keep hearing about Russian troops refusing to fight. And they leave. I would think that shot for cowardice would have been more likely. If enough Russian troops refuse to die. They lose.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

What I meant by super weapons was more like HIMARS, Harpoon, Patriot, Abrams, Reaper. Our good stuff that it takes months to train on.

Ok, I thought you were talking about something secret and super advanced.

I think Ukraine might be getting Harpoons from the UK already. I can see them possibly getting Patriot missiles eventually and maybe Reapers. The Abrams tanks seem like kind of a long shot, but also I think they are the least valuable for this kind of modern warfare. Some other kind of precision weapon, or a long-range cruise missile for use against ground targets makes more sense to me.

I have no idea if any of this kind of gear is flowing to Ukraine, but some of it seems plausible at some point.

 

[teepot]

Ok, I thought you were talking about something secret and super advanced.

I think Ukraine might be getting Harpoons from the UK already. I can see them possibly getting Patriot missiles eventually and maybe Reapers. The Abrams tanks seem like kind of a long shot, but also I think they are the least valuable for this kind of modern warfare. Some other kind of precision weapon, or a long-range cruise missile for use against ground targets makes more sense to me.

I have no idea if any of this kind of gear is flowing to Ukraine, but some of it seems plausible at some point.

Cruise Missiles absolutely. Although I don't know of a ground launce system. And platform integration is a non starter. HIMARS with an ATACMS missile, might as well be a cruise missile, is a very close cousin. I looked up the operators. Romania is one of the few countries other than the US to have them, Huum.

 

[Dotini]

The situation in the Black Sea appears to be sharpening.

 

[OverTheTop]

I keep hearing about Russian troops refusing to fight. And they leave. I would think that shot for cowardice would have been more likely. If enough Russian troops refuse to die. They lose.

Apparently as it is a "special military operation" different rules apply and they are legally allowed to refuse to a fairly good degree. War is a different kettle of kipper, according to the laws. I would be hoping that they were not shot anyway but I am not sure I have confidence in that.

 

[jderimig]

From all reports and the various trial balloons being floated by Kissinger, NYT et al, it appears that the war has turned (against the UKR). I am preparing for disappointment.

 

[boatgeek]

From all reports and the various trial balloons being floated by Kissinger, NYT et al, it appears that the war has turned (against the UKR). I am preparing for disappointment.

I dunno that it indicates a turning point. Calls to trade land for peace have been pretty continuous since about day 10 of the war, when it became clear that Ukraine wasn’t going to just fold outright. Some of those calls have been from the people active on this thread. It has been interesting to see at least a couple of them gardening views in favor of Ukraine.

That said, I kind of expect more bad news than good for a week or so.

 

[jderimig]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/26/ukraine-frontline-russia-military-severodonetsk/

 

[Peartree]

From all reports and the various trial balloons being floated by Kissinger, NYT et al, it appears that the war has turned (against the UKR). I am preparing for disappointment.

Maybe. But, as I've previously noted, what athe Russians seem to have done to obtain victory, is to withdraw from an enormous front line and concentrate their for es on a much narrower combat sphere. This may be a smart move that allows them to employ larger forces and use fewer officers with better communication. All those things are in their favor. BUT, given the enormous losses of tanks, artillery, troops, officers, and well... everything, it may also be that this is the only reasonable way to enjoy what little they have left. They can't replace armor, they can't replace aircraft, and unless there is a formal declaration of war, it seems like they might not be able to replace troop loses either. And if that is what we're seeing, then while continued fighting may make gains for the Russians, their losses continue to pile up while the Ukrainians losses are not only being replaced, but at a greater rate than they are being lost. Again, if that is what we are watching, we *will* see Russian gains... for a while. But at some point, and estimes that I've seen vary from 30 to 90 days, Russian losses become so unteneble that entire divisions, if not the entire army collapses and either retreats or surrenders. An armor unit without tanks, or without ammunition, or without officers (in the Russian military) cannot fight and must leave the field. And the same is true for other unit types. All that to say that Russian gains don't necessarily mean that Russia is winning. It may well be that Russian gains are a temporary sign that Russia is losing.

 

[georgegassaway]

I keep hearing about Russian troops refusing to fight. And they leave. I would think that shot for cowardice would have been more likely. If enough Russian troops refuse to die. They lose.

They could be punished for cowardice...... *IF* this was officially a war. But it is merely a so-called "Military Special Operation" (Distinction without a difference), so they can legally refuse without being shot. They could be punished, like jail, but it seems most are just being kicked out of the military (At least for those who refuse to go ot Ukraine to begin with). Special Forces is a different thing, but most are not special forces.

If Pootin' wanted to address that problem, as well as conscript (draft) new fodder into the military, he'd declare this a war.

 

[smstachwick]

Maybe. But, as I've previously noted, what athe Russians seem to have done to obtain victory, is to withdraw from an enormous front line and concentrate their for es on a much narrower combat sphere. This may be a smart move that allows them to employ larger forces and use fewer officers with better communication. All those things are in their favor. BUT, given the enormous losses of tanks, artillery, troops, officers, and well... everything, it may also be that this is the only reasonable way to enjoy what little they have left. They can't replace armor, they can't replace aircraft, and unless there is a formal declaration of war, it seems like they might not be able to replace troop loses either. And if that is what we're seeing, then while continued fighting may make gains for the Russians, their losses continue to pile up while the Ukrainians losses are not only being replaced, but at a greater rate than they are being lost. Again, if that is what we are watching, we *will* see Russian gains... for a while. But at some point, and estimes that I've seen vary from 30 to 90 days, Russian losses become so unteneble that entire divisions, if not the entire army collapses and either retreats or surrenders. An armor unit without tanks, or without ammunition, or without officers (in the Russian military) cannot fight and must leave the field. And the same is true for other unit types. All that to say that Russian gains don't necessarily mean that Russia is winning. It may well be that Russian gains are a temporary sign that Russia is losing.

Basically the war looks like it will come down to the western portion of the Schlieffen Plan and the Hundred Days Offensive jammed back-to-back.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I think there are going to be some hard days ahead. The battle of Severodonetsk is going to be terrible. It could still go either way, but it really does not look good right now.

That’s a strategic point that’s important to hold, but I also wonder if the battle there is also about using up Russian time and energy as Ukraine reorganizes into a more offensive mode. That takes time to do.

Long term, I’m still optimistic about Ukraine’s chances, because I don’t think Russia can sustain its attack or hold its gains for long. But there are probably going to be some bad times before the momentum changes.

 

[Steve Shannon]

If this happens it could change the trajectory of the war.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

If this happens it could change the trajectory of the war.

That would be a game changer for sure. I can understand the reluctance though.

 

[afadeev]

From all reports and the various trial balloons being floated by Kissinger, NYT et al, it appears that the war has turned (against the UKR).

I would not read too much into Kissinger. There is no indication he is anywhere close to the current administration, and his opinions run orthogonal to the US policy.
I don't know who paid for Kissinger to go to Davos, but he comes across as more of an old goat bleating in the wilderness.

I am preparing for disappointment.

I'm preparing for an extended, possibly multi-year, conflict.

The battle of Severodonetsk is going to be terrible. It could still go either way, but it really does not look good right now.

Severodonetsk is on a wrong side of a river.
There is a sister town, Lysychansk, on the side of the river controlled by Ukrainian forces, and the bridge between the two was blown recently (not sure by whom). As it stands, I see Ukrainians conducting fighting withdrawal from that area to avoid getting cut off, stranded, and surrounded (see map below).




https://liveuamap.com/

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I would not read too much into Kissinger. There is no indication he is anywhere close to the current administration, and his opinions run orthogonal to the US policy.
I don't know who paid for Kissinger to go to Davos, but he comes across as more of an old goat bleating in the wilderness.



I'm preparing for an extended, possibly multi-year, conflict.



Severodonetsk is on a wrong side of a river.
There is a sister town, Lysychansk, on the side of the river controlled by Ukrainian forces, and the bridge between the two was blown recently (not sure by whom). As it stands, I see Ukrainians conducting fighting withdrawal from that area to avoid getting cut off, stranded, and surrounded (see map below).

View attachment 520458


https://liveuamap.com/

That’s a GREAT interactive map. Thanks for the link!

 

[user 13]

Long range weapons, like cruise missiles or even the MRLS are interesting.

Cruise missiles tend to be more strategic in nature, I know the US has had success using them in a tactical environment. The MRLS looks to be tactical, though I'm not as familiar with them.
Strategic weapons will be a political issue for sure.

Russia wins if they get to keep eastern Ukraine, but sadly I can see a path to that.

Severodonetsk is going badly for the Ukraine, Russia has the initiative back and it should be surrounded soon,
Russia seems to finally be learning from some of their mistakes.

I hope I'm wrong, and I could easily be.