Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War

[afadeev]

US arms stockpiles - is NATO running out of weapons to supply Ukraine? (no)​

 

[user 13]

Don't worry, we can build more.

EDIT:

A very good video afadeev. Thanks

 

[Sooner Boomer]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/captured-russian-weapons-are-packed-with-foreign-microchips

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

It sounds like the US may be getting close to supplying the Ukrainians with the Multiple Launch Rocket Systems. MLRS or HIMARS would allow the Ukrainians to engage the Russians over much longer distances than they can now. It sounds like it’s not quite a done deal yet, but maybe it’s closer than it was before.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/politics/us-long-range-rockets-ukraine-mlrs/index.html
EDIT: Here’s another article on the topic. According to this the US might mitigate the concern that these systems could lead to an escalation of the war by not providing the longest range rockets.

These systems can fire a lot of variations of rocket artillery ammunition. Some of the standard rockets have a range of about 40 miles, while more advanced rockets have a range of almost 190 miles. There’s a worry that the advanced rockets could reach too far into Russia, so Ukraine might only receive only the shorter-range rockets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...7/artillery-long-range-ukraine-rocket-system/

 

[Greg Furtman]

Here's another good video by Perun about what Finland & Sweden can bring to NATO.

 

[afadeev]

For those who care about a UK-focused review of the current political developments in the West w.r.t. Ukraine:

• on Kissinger
• on Germans, French, and British
• on overall far-left and far-right affection for Putin, and fear of Ukraine winning more than that of Russia winning (on both sides of the Atlantic)
• on Biden

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Today’s ISW assessment has an interesting take.

Its main conclusion for the day is that Russia has poured so much into this current battle for Severodonetsk that Russia is expending almost all of their operational capacity for something of symbolic value but almost no strategic or operational value.

They may win the battle of Severodonetsk, or they may not, but either way, it’s going to cost them so much in losses of personnel and materiel, that operationally their offensive will have “culminated” with this battle. They use the word “culminate” to mean that the offensive has reached the greatest extent it can achieve based on its operational capacity. Taking Severodonetsk does not return anything in the way of new operational capacity to enlarge the invasion. It won’t open new supply lines or win new supplies or personnel. Its only value is to be able to claim a PR success in fully occupying Luhansk.

Ukraine is taking serious tactical losses in this battle too, but the attrition rate is asymmetrical against Russia. Ukraine has greater reserves, internal supply lines, and the resupply support of allies. So according to the assessment, Ukraine will have opportunities for counteroffensives along other fronts once the battle is done. I hope that’s the case and we can move to that phase of the war soon.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-28

 

[user 13]

Yah, I see no real tactical value for Severodonetsk, other than eliminating some Ukraine forces.

The Ukraine forces in Severodonetsk are militarily in a very bad situation.

But as you say, it would be a big PR victory for Russia and would consolidate the eastern Ukraine, prepping for
a cease fire that would allow Russia to keep what they have.

That would be very good for putin domestically. He would claim victory.

But at a very heavy cost.

 

[boatgeek]

Yah, I see no real tactical value for Severodonetsk, other than eliminating some Ukraine forces.

The Ukraine forces in Severodonetsk are militarily in a very bad situation.

But as you say, it would be a big PR victory for Russia and would consolidate the eastern Ukraine, prepping for
a cease fire that would allow Russia to keep what they have.

That would be very good for putin domestically. He would claim victory.

But at a very heavy cost.

I feel like the real value of capturing Severodonetsk is that then Russia could then hold a “referendum” in Luhansk oblast asking to join Russia. Russia would no doubt quickly accept. Regardless of whether anyone else recognized the annexation, Russia benefits. First of all, the people who fear that Putin will use nukes will go off the charts since any attempt to regain Luhansk by Ukraine would be “attacking Russian territory”. Second, if Ukraine did attack, Russia could call it a war instead of a special military operation and then be able to force conscripts to fight.

 

[afadeev]

I feel like the real value of capturing Severodonetsk is that then Russia could then hold a “referendum” in Luhansk oblast asking to join Russia. Russia would no doubt quickly accept. Regardless of whether anyone else recognized the annexation, Russia benefits.

I'm not sure how?
Russia had already "declared" LPR "independent", regardless of its borders or boundaries.
It can equally decide to "declare" it part of Russia. At any time, for any reason.
If it benefits Putin domestically, he will do so. At any time. For any reason.
If it doesn't, he wont.

Having said that, each Ukrainian town Putin "liberates", probably plays well in the internal newscasts to his subjects. So there is that.

First of all, the people who fear that Putin will use nukes will go off the charts since any attempt to regain Luhansk by Ukraine would be “attacking Russian territory”.

Putin will saber rattle nukes from now till the end of the war, but will NEVER use either strategic nukes (he is ruthless, but not suicidal), or tactical (ineffective and pointless, but also will draw NATO in) nukes.
More on that in video referenced below.

Second, if Ukraine did attack, Russia could call it a war instead of a special military operation and then be able to force conscripts to fight.

Ukraine has already attacked multiple Russian targets inside the areas immediately next to Donbas. Belgorod, or something like that, comes to mind.
If attacks within Russia proper did not prompt Russia to call up the conscripts, I don't see how attacks on newly "acquired" Luhansk would.

The issue here is not nominal designation of any particular regions within Russia or Ukraine, but (internal Russian) political and logistical impossibility of Russia calling up and equipping its conscripts for either war, or a "special military operation".
Specifically, what Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges said here:

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I'm not sure how?
Russia had already "declared" LPR "independent", regardless of its borders or boundaries.
It can equally decide to "declare" it part of Russia. At any time, for any reason.
If it benefits Putin domestically, he will do so. At any time. For any reason.
If it doesn't, he wont.

Having said that, each Ukrainian town Putin "liberates", probably plays well in the internal newscasts to his subjects. So there is that.



Putin will saber rattle nukes from now till the end of the war, but will NEVER use either strategic nukes (he is ruthless, but not suicidal), or tactical (ineffective and pointless, but also will draw NATO in) nukes.
More on that in video referenced below.



Ukraine has already attacked multiple Russian targets inside the areas immediately next to Donbas. Belgorod, or something like that, comes to mind.
If attacks within Russia proper did not prompt Russia to call up the conscripts, I don't see how attacks on newly "acquired" Luhansk would.

The issue here is not nominal designation of any particular regions within Russia or Ukraine, but (internal Russian) political and logistical impossibility of Russia calling up and equipping its conscripts for either war, or a "special military operation".
Specifically, what Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges said here:

Interesting video. It’s a long one, and I’m only partway through it, but I had to pause and point out that John Cochrane has a Tin Tin rocket on the table behind him. It’s on the left, laying on its side.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I’ve seen a few reports that a Ukrainian counteroffensive has started near Kherson. Things have been relatively static there for awhile, but it looks like Ukraine is going on the offensive. A lot of Russian resources have been pulled into the East for the battle of Severodonetsk and fighting around that area, so maybe this is a good opportunity for the new counteroffensive. This will help spread the Russians thin if they need to focus on more than one region.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/05...alties-ukraine-goes-on-the-attack-in-kherson/
https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/05...arkiv-oblasts-as-russia-presses-on-in-donbas/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/29/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-kherson.html?smid=url-share

 

[Bravo52]

Putin will saber rattle nukes from now till the end of the war, but will NEVER use either strategic nukes (he is ruthless, but not suicidal), or tactical (ineffective and pointless, but also will draw NATO in) nukes.
More on that in video referenced below.

That is yet to be seen. For example, if the "Soviets" ... Russians were to use a tactical nuke inside Ukraine, I seriously doubt the current government in the US would retaliate in any meaningful way. Additionally, when you say "NATO" response you really mean the US and the UK. France doesn't like to play at NATO stuff. So what that really means is if the UK doesn't do anything, then nobody does anything. So the best anyone can hope for is a massive NATO conventional response and that is not likely at all. Of course this is just my opinion. No, I didn't watch the video.

 

[smstachwick]

Additionally, when you say "NATO" response you really mean the US and the UK. France doesn't like to play at NATO stuff.

They participated in the 2011 enforcement of the no-fly zone over Libya. They even had their own code name for their bit of the mission, Operation Harmattan.

 

[Bravo52]

They participated in the 2011 enforcement of the no-fly zone over Libya. They even had their own code name for their bit of the mission, Operation Harmattan.

I said they don't like to play at the NATO stuff. Key word being "like". There is a strained relationship even today. After France "quit" NATO over the integrated military command structure (read nukes) in the 60's and then rejoined in the 00's, that stress still exist. To what extent? Who knows, but I wouldn't expect them to jump right in a "toe-to-toe nuclear exchange" unless they think it will singularly benefit them. Of course, this is always just my opinion. Hmmmm...what role did France play in El Dorado Canyon.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

According to this article, if the Ukrainians want to fully push Russia all the way out, they will need about a year or more to get ready.

They will need something on the order of 100,000 new recruits, thousands of new vehicles, and tons of new heavy weapons and supplies. They will need a year to train new recruits as soldiers and officers and how to operate in a unit, and they’ll need time to form smaller units into battalions, brigades, and divisions and how to do combined arms offensives. I don’t really know much about these kinds of things, but it sounds plausible, and it sounds like a LOT.

I guess that’s what would be required to actually FORCE Russia out. It could be that other pressures might lead Russia to just leave, or at least pull back some. Maybe the cost in lives and equipment might get to be too much over time. The economic pressure and sanctions might start to get old. There could be internal economic, social, and political pressures. But it sounds like if Putin is determined to stay, this is what this author thinks would be required to defeat Russia. Wow.


https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/05...ssia-out-part-iii-building-an-offensive-army/

 

[smstachwick]

According to this article, if the Ukrainians want to fully push Russia all the way out, they will need about a year or more to get ready.

They will need something on the order of 100,000 new recruits, thousands of new vehicles, and tons of new heavy weapons and supplies. They will need a year to train new recruits as soldiers and officers and how to operate in a unit, and they’ll need time to form smaller units into battalions, brigades, and divisions and how to do combined arms offensives. I don’t really know much about these kinds of things, but it sounds plausible, and it sounds like a LOT.

I guess that’s what would be required to actually FORCE Russia out. It could be that other pressures might lead Russia to just leave, or at least pull back some. Maybe the cost in lives and equipment might get to be too much over time. The economic pressure and sanctions might start to get old. There could be internal economic, social, and political pressures. But it sounds like if Putin is determined to stay, this is what this author thinks would be required to defeat Russia. Wow.


https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/05...ssia-out-part-iii-building-an-offensive-army/

I don’t find this surprising. Russia began concentrating forces on Russian- and Belarusian-Ukrainian border in March 2021. It’s obvious they prepared for this for months, almost a year. Deciding and planning almost certainly began even earlier. The plans and preparations for driving them out will probably take a similar timescale.

 

[jderimig]

According to this article, if the Ukrainians want to fully push Russia all the way out, they will need about a year or more to get ready.

They will need something on the order of 100,000 new recruits, thousands of new vehicles, and tons of new heavy weapons and supplies. They will need a year to train new recruits as soldiers and officers and how to operate in a unit, and they’ll need time to form smaller units into battalions, brigades, and divisions and how to do combined arms offensives. I don’t really know much about these kinds of things, but it sounds plausible, and it sounds like a LOT.

I guess that’s what would be required to actually FORCE Russia out. It could be that other pressures might lead Russia to just leave, or at least pull back some. Maybe the cost in lives and equipment might get to be too much over time. The economic pressure and sanctions might start to get old. There could be internal economic, social, and political pressures. But it sounds like if Putin is determined to stay, this is what this author thinks would be required to defeat Russia. Wow.


https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/05...ssia-out-part-iii-building-an-offensive-army/

Yes and they will need the US Treasury to fund in and the effort will be futile. How much funding has the EU supplied relative to the US treasure being spent on this war?

 

[teepot]

I said they don't like to play at the NATO stuff. Key word being "like". There is a strained relationship even today. After France "quit" NATO over the integrated military command structure (read nukes) in the 60's and then rejoined in the 00's, that stress still exist. To what extent? Who knows, but I wouldn't expect them to jump right in a "toe-to-toe nuclear exchange" unless they think it will singularly benefit them. Of course, this is always just my opinion. Hmmmm...what role did France play in El Dorado Canyon.

The Libya raid was flown by the F111's from RAF Lakenheath and probably the EF 111s from RAF Upper Hayford.. And don't you just love the French. They said you can't over fly our country. So that caused many more tankers and refueling. The had to fly to Gibraltar and turn left.
While we were in England our daughter went on a school trip to Paris for the day. She said Paris was filthy and the people rude. Glad I didn't go. Played golf instead.

 

[user 13]

Yup,

The French are fair weather friends in NATO.

They are a little better now that terrorists have been an issue.

 

[Bill S]

One thing that occurs to me is this: What happens some time down the road, when Russia is so weakened, whether they win or lose, that their Chinese "allies of convenience" decide to take advantage of the situation? I could see the Chinese deciding that the time is good for them to roll over the border and "liberate or put under their protection" large areas of Siberia, etc, to obtain the mineral resources and oil there. What could the Russians really do, other than threaten nukes (which the Chinese also have, and who probably would consider losing a city or two to be an good trade for Siberia)?

 

[Sooner Boomer]

It's being reported by several news sources that Biden is refusing to send long range missile systems to Ukraine. He is said to be concerned about the ability of the missile systems to reach into Russia, which they could interpret as a major escalation.

 

[boatgeek]

It's being reported by several news sources that Biden is refusing to send long range missile systems to Ukraine. He is said to be concerned about the ability of the missile systems to reach into Russia, which they could interpret as a major escalation.

This article says that the US is still sending the MLRS systems, just not the longest-range rockets for them. The shorter-range rockets have a range of ~40 miles.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

It's being reported by several news sources that Biden is refusing to send long range missile systems to Ukraine. He is said to be concerned about the ability of the missile systems to reach into Russia, which they could interpret as a major escalation.

What I had heard on this is that the US government was concerned about a potential escalation of the war if they sent Ukraine missile systems that can fire missiles 190 miles into Russia, so they’ve decided to send the MLRS system, but not the long range missiles.

The MLRS can load 2 rocket/missile pods at a time. A pod can contain 6 rockets, or it can contain 1 ATACMS missile, so that’s a total of 12 rockets or 2 missiles, no mix and match. The ATACMS missile has a range of 186 miles, and that’s considered too potentially escalating, so they aren’t getting those. But they are getting the rocket pods, which have a shorter range, but still longer than howitzers. Those should be a big help.

The last I heard on Friday was that this has been decided, but not officially announced, and an official announcement should come this week.

 

[smstachwick]

If I were President Zelenskyy, I’d be thinking about what war aims, peace terms, and domestic/foreign policy I’d announce or reiterate when the counter-offensive begins.

I’m betting that these will at least be considered and discussed:

• Ukrainian forces will drive all Russian military forces out of Ukraine’s internationally recognized pre-2014 territory and bring it back under Kyiv’s control.
• Ukrainian forces will continue to defend the border from incursions and counteroffensives by the Russian military
• Ukrainian forces will continue conducting precision artillery, air, or sabotage strikes on targets inside Russia that continue attacking Ukrainian territory, but will not deploy regular ground forces to capture Russian territory or attack Russian targets indiscriminately by any means.
• Ukraine will determine its own future by strengthening its democracy, exercising its freedom to negotiate and choose its own international security agreements and alliances, and working to eliminate corruption left over from the Yanukovych era.
• Ukraine will work with international partners to identify, locate, apprehend, prosecute, convict, punish, and rehabilitate all Russian war criminals in accordance with international law, including Vladimir Putin.
• Ukraine will continue to demand professionalism and compliance with the laws of war from its own forces, and ensure swift justice is delivered to violators in its own forces.
• Ukraine will offer Russia a peace agreement that includes these terms, including the surrendering of all identified war criminals to international authorities, and will maintain an end of hostilities if it is agreed to and complied with.
• Ukraine will seek the help of willing members of the international community to rebuild its territory.
• Ukraine will work with Russia and the international community in the peacetime era to build a friendly, prosperous, secure, and free Russia, in the interest of preventing aggressive war waged by or against the Russian state and people.

No telling how accurate this prediction will be, but that’s what I’d do in his position.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

If I were President Zelenskyy, I’d be thinking about what war aims, peace terms, and domestic/foreign policy I’d announce or reiterate when the counter-offensive begins.

I’m betting that these will at least be considered and discussed:

• Ukrainian forces will drive all Russian military forces out of Ukraine’s internationally recognized pre-2014 territory and bring it back under Kyiv’s control.
• Ukrainian forces will continue to defend the border from incursions and counteroffensives by the Russian military
• Ukrainian forces will continue conducting precision artillery, air, or sabotage strikes on targets inside Russia that continue attacking Ukrainian territory, but will not deploy regular ground forces to capture Russian territory or attack Russian targets indiscriminately.
• Ukraine will determine its own future, including the strengthening of its democracy, exercising its freedom to negotiate and choose its own international security agreements and alliances, and work to eliminate corruption left over from the Yanukovych era.
• Ukraine will work with international partners to identify, locate, apprehend, prosecute, convict, punish, and rehabilitate all Russian war criminals in accordance with international law, including Vladimir Putin.
• Ukraine will continue to demand professionalism and compliance with the laws of war from its own forces, and ensure swift justice is delivered to violators in its own forces.
• Ukraine will offer Russia a peace agreement that includes these terms, including the surrendering of all identified war criminals to international authorities, and will maintain an end of hostilities if it is agreed to and complied with.
• Ukraine will seek the help of willing members of the international community to rebuild its territory.
• Ukraine will work with Russia and the international community in the peacetime era to build a friendly, prosperous, secure, and free Russia, in the interest of preventing aggressive war waged by or against the Russian state and people.

No telling how accurate this prediction will be, but that’s what I’d do in his position.

That all sounds good, and I’d include another aim: Ukraine will seek the repatriation of all Ukrainian citizens who were forcibly removed to Russia.

 

[afadeev]

That is yet to be seen. For example, if the "Soviets" ... Russians were to use a tactical nuke inside Ukraine, I seriously doubt the current government in the US would retaliate in any meaningful way.

First of all, deploying a tactical nuke by Russia will be tactically and strategically idiotic. Even suicidal.
On one hand, they will be nuking a few hundred Ukrainian soldiers, but to do that, they would need to withdraw their forces out of the blast zone first. So Ukrainians (and the US) will pickup on that well in advance. And even if Ukrainians did not withdraw in time and a tactical nuke was employed by Russia - what will that achieve? Nuclear contamination of the very territory they are trying to occupy and control? Destruction of some target that they are not capable of destroying by conventional means? None of this makes any sense.
On the other hand, it will be a clear escalation of the conflict, which will inevitably lead to a response from the US and massive political backlash from a few allies Russia still has.

We can argue as to what exactly that US response will be, but an engagement to disable Russian tactical nuclear supply chain and infrastcture will definitely be on the agenda.
If you trust Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, 5 days of F35 going to work, and everything that Russia has in Ukraine will be gone.


More on tactical weapons doctrines here:
https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/2176.pdf

Additionally, when you say "NATO" response you really mean the US and the UK. France doesn't like to play at NATO stuff. So what that really means is if the UK doesn't do anything, then nobody does anything. So the best anyone can hope for is a massive NATO conventional response and that is not likely at all. Of course this is just my opinion. No, I didn't watch the video.

Lets be honest here - NATO will do nothing without US leadership. Good, bad, or indifferent, that's how it is.
UK matters as much as Frances, which is to say, not a lot.

If US says "Russia is loosing it's ground forces in Ukraine", then that's enough. And it will unfold exactly that way.
And Russian knows it.

Which is why US vacillating and limiting capabilities of weapons it is willing to supply to Ukraine is so absurd and counter-productive.
But at least, this administration is doing something. It's Putin-worshipping predecessors would have done less, if anything at all.

a

 

[boatgeek]

Which is why US vacillating and limiting capabilities of weapons it is willing to supply to Ukraine is so absurd and counter-productive.
But at least, this administration is doing something. It's Putin-worshipping predecessors would have done less, if anything at all.

I wonder if there's a "frog in the pot" element to this. Giving Ukraine MLRS units but only the short range ones, then later giving them the long range ones seems like two smaller steps than just outright giving them the longer-range ones.

 

[smstachwick]

I wonder if there's a "frog in the pot" element to this. Giving Ukraine MLRS units but only the short range ones, then later giving them the long range ones seems like two smaller steps than just outright giving them the longer-range ones.

On the other hand, there is also this to consider:

Many folks here seem to be assuming that what is announced is the sum total of everything being done or given. I assume no such thing. Announcements are just those things you have chosen to tell your opponent. They may be true. They might not be true. They might be half truths. They might be exaggerations, and they might be total fantasy. Announcements can be any, all, or none of those, whichever best suits the needs of the mission and national security.

 

[Bravo52]

First of all, deploying a tactical nuke by Russia will be tactically and strategically idiot. Even suicidal.
On one hand, they will be nuking a few hundred Ukrainian soldiers, but to do that, they would need to withdraw their forces out of the blast zone first. So Ukrainians (and the US) will pickup on that well in advance. And even if Ukrainians did not withdraw in time and a tactical nuke was employed by Russia - what will that achieve? Nuclear contamination of the very territory they are trying to occupy and control? Destruction of some target that they are not capable of destroying by conventional means? None of this makes any sense.
On the other hand, it will be a clear escalation of the conflict, which will inevitably lead to a response from the US and massive political backlash from a few allies Russia still has.

We can argue as to what exactly that US response will be, but an engagement to disable Russian tactical nuclear supply chain and infrastcture will definitely be on the agenda.
If you trust Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, 5 days of F35 going to work, and everything that Russia has in Ukraine will be gone.


More on tactical weapons doctrines here:
https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/2176.pdf


Lets be honest here - NATO will do nothing without US leadership. Good, bad, or indifferent, that's how it is.
UK matters as much as Frances, which is to say, not a lot.

If US says "Russia is loosing it's ground forces in Ukraine", then that's enough. And it will unfold exactly that way.
And Russian knows it.

Which is why US vacillating and limiting capabilities of weapons it is willing to supply to Ukraine is so absurd and counter-productive.
But at least, this administration is doing something. It's Putin-worshipping predecessors would have done less, if anything at all.

a

You assume that if it gets to the point of the use of a tactical nuclear weapon, the Russian's will "want to make sense" of their actions to the west. They (Putan) have already made it clear that is an option so who are we trying to convince? Perhaps it's just bluster, perhaps not. For example, if you eliminate all the emotional response to the use of strategic weapons, do you really think Putan would worry about a few hundred Russian ground troops? Additionally, I don't think he would be using the weapon/weapons on the FEBA, he would go after their COGs. I'm sure Kiev would be a consideration (ie areas they don't want). Nukes are more strategic, even in their tactical capacity.

I do agree now more than ever, that US conventional forces could make short work of the Russian conventional military...with the exception of their air defense systems. The F-35/F-22/B-2s would fair pretty well against those systems but unless they are dealt with, it will not be as "quick work" as we'd like it to be. But on to the larger point, do you think 3AF (US) would commit most of it's F35 fleet to engagement in Ukraine? Not likely (also to the point about NATO not doing anything).

This administration is barely doing anything. The comment about the "predecessors" is puerile at best and mostly wrong. Different times and different priorities and different needs. At least now we have a NATO that is a little more focused...if only a little.


EDIT: I went back and watched the video and don't disagree with all the speculation in the referenced conversation. I found the discussion starting at 36:00 much more enlightening. I've had similar discussions with 4-stars on that very thing.