Cont: The Russian Invasion of Ukraine part 8

[MarkCorrigan]

The other day I ran across an argument that the Russian surface fleet makes no sense. The premise was that the main purpose of the Russian military is to bully weaker neighbors. The Baltic Fleet cannot do this. The Northern Fleet cannot do this. The Pacific Fleet cannot do this. The Mediterranean Task Force cannot do this.

The Black Sea Fleet could do this, but that worm has turned. The Caspian Flotilla can probably still do this, but that's about it.

Therefore, concludes the argument, Russia should not waste its limited resources trying to design and build new capital ships. Rather, it should focus on maintaining the submarine arm of its nuclear triad, and developing littoral combat ships suitable for patrolling its own coasts and bullying whatever weaker neighbors still have a coastline in Russia's sphere of influence.

This does make sense, but I suspect the reason Moscow keeps trying to build and maintain capital ships (and failing spectacularly) is because they're seen as the pinnacle of a modern navy. The US has them, the UK, France... every big nation that Russia wants to pretend to be on a level with (or better than) has fleets with a number of capital ships. So Russia thinks it needs them too.

 

[dasmiller]

This does make sense, but I suspect the reason Moscow keeps trying to build and maintain capital ships (and failing spectacularly) is because they're seen as the pinnacle of a modern navy. The US has them, the UK, France, Germany... every big nation that Russia wants to pretend to be on a level with (or better than) has fleets with a number of capital ships. So Russia thinks it needs them too.

This. Russia likes to think (and tell everyone else) that it's a global power, and global force projection requires a blue-water navy. Littoral combat vessels may be fine for threatening neighbors, but that's not global.

Yes, there's a large gulf between Russia's self-image and their actual capabilities . . .

 

[theprestige]

I think there's something to be said for a Russian surface warfare force, established along sea control lines. It would be used to make space for Russian subs from the Northern Fleet to enter the Atlantic. Not able to go head to head with a US carrier strike group, but enough of a presence to warrant caution, and give the Russians some breathing room.

A Kiev, a Kirov, a couple Slavas... But Moscow can no longer even do this much.

 

[Aridas]

It's not like Moscow has better leaders waiting in the wings, ready to step forward and start doing a good job, once their incompetent bosses are removed from the picture.

That we know of, at least. There always is a possibility that some amazing new talent will emerge, but... yeah, it's quite unlikely, given how Russia and the Russian military works.

The pros of taking out senior leadership, on the other hand, include 1) various disruptions along the lines of command, strategy, and personnel movement, 2) PR and morale war, and 3) discouraging the actually competent from wanting to paint a bigger target on oneself.

The first, especially, is likely to be useful in the middle of a major assault where Russia's already been ground down greatly and has the potential to break soon.

 

[Doubt]

The other day I ran across an argument that the Russian surface fleet makes no sense. The premise was that the main purpose of the Russian military is to bully weaker neighbors. The Baltic Fleet cannot do this. The Northern Fleet cannot do this. The Pacific Fleet cannot do this. The Mediterranean Task Force cannot do this.

I do not recall the source, but somebody once said that the Russian navy is a luxury that Russia often cannot afford. But getting rid of it would be to admit they are not really a world power.

 

[theprestige]

That we know of, at least. There always is a possibility that some amazing new talent will emerge, but... yeah, it's quite unlikely, given how Russia and the Russian military works.

The pros of taking out senior leadership, on the other hand, include 1) various disruptions along the lines of command, strategy, and personnel movement, 2) PR and morale war, and 3) discouraging the actually competent from wanting to paint a bigger target on oneself.

The first, especially, is likely to be useful in the middle of a major assault where Russia's already been ground down greatly and has the potential to break soon.

I've seen it argued that General Surovikin intended the layered lines of defense to be effective speedbumps for the Ukrainian counterattack, wearing them down while the defenders fell back with minimal casualties. The Ukrainians would end up exhausted and overextened, ripe for defeat in detail. However, Surovikin was removed from his position, and Gerasimov is using the "Surovikin line" as a jumping-off point for prompt and costly counterattacks.

Both doctrines are sound. Both strategies could be made to work quite well for the Russians, even at their current level of competence. But building for one and then using the other is decidedly suboptimal, even for the most competent army. This would suggest that even replacing one good general with another still works to Ukraine's benefit in this war.

 

[Oystein]

..., Surovikin was removed from his position, and Gerasimov is using the "Surovikin line" as a jumping-off point for prompt and costly counterattacks.

Both doctrines are sound. ... This would suggest that even replacing one good general with another still works to Ukraine's benefit in this war.

Did you just say Gerasimov is a good general?!?

 

[Mike!]

Did you just say Gerasimov is a good general?!?

As Russian Generals go. It's possible he's grading on the curve too.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Did you just say Gerasimov is a good general?!?

There are worse.

That doesn't make him good of course, but for the Putin Era Russian Military, he's practically Alexander the Great crossed with Arthur Wellesley.

 

[crescent]

As Russian Generals go. It's possible he's grading on the curve too.

A Russian Navy Colonel in the submarine service somehow got killed in Nagorno-Karabakh. Which is landlocked.

They really need that curve.

 

[theprestige]

Did you just say Gerasimov is a good general?!? : eek :

I did not. He's probably a better general than I am, though.

 

[Oystein]

The issue of Elections in Ukraine is coming up.
Apparently, some leaders in the West are urging Ukraine to hold elections next year, as planned (I believe the presidency is up for re-election; what else I haven't bothered yet to research).
And Zelenskyy is quoted as having said "I am ready to hold elections, but the Ukrainian society does not support this idea" during a news conference in Canada a couple of days ago.

The problem here is of course that Ukraine is under Martial Law, fighting a war on its territory, with significant parts of the territory currentl yoccupied and unavailable for holding proper elections. Also, there is the problem of millions of Ukrainian refugees in third countries. It is probably possible to organize polling in those host countries, but ensuring fair election campaigning is more difficult.

So: What are the arguments pro and contra elections in 2024? Which side to they lean to?

 

[Ian Osborne]

The last thing Ukraine needs right now is the inevitable uncertainties caused by an election. Postpone the polls until after the war. It's the only smart thing to do.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Pro is obviously "You show that you're a legitimate democracy".

Con is "you're in the middle of a ******* war. Even if Zelenskyy is pretty much a shoe-in to win holding elections will cause disruption".

 

[SpitfireIX]

One of the all-time best was the sadly canceled Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or ASRAAM. It was to have had an infrared seeker, so that it would have tended to strike aircraft in their tailpipes.

I found out that the program wasn't actually canceled; rather, everyone except Britain dropped out. So today the ASRAAM is used by the RAF and the Indian Air Force, and was recently retired by the RAAF along with their early-model F/A-18s. And last month Britain provided some to Ukraine for use as SAMs. So hopefully the Ukrainians will be ramming them up the es of lots of Russian strike aircraft.

 

[theprestige]

The only people "concerned" that it will look bad if Ukraine doesn't hold elections are those who want Ukraine to look bad.

Those who support Ukraine against Russia understand that it can be legitimate to postpone elections during wartime, and will support Ukraine if it takes this route.

Holding elections just to mollify useful idiots in the west, who have adopted a pose of withholding their support if Ukraine doesn't hold elections, is a foolish game, and Zelensky should not play it. He's right to appeal to the opinions of the Ukrainian people in his remarks. If elections are necessary for Ukrainian morale, to maintain the support of the Ukrainian people for their government and the war, then yes, Ukraine should hold elections. If the Ukrainian people are not calling for elections, though? Then literally everyone else should shut up and sit down. At that point, advocating for elections just makes you a Russian shill. Even advocating hypothetically makes you - hypothetically - a Russian shill.

 

[Oystein]

The last thing Ukraine needs right now is the inevitable uncertainties caused by an election. Postpone the polls until after the war. It's the only smart thing to do.

What if the war "never" ends?
Or freezes indefinitely, flaring up every now and then?
By what criteria should a decision be made to finally go to polls?
(I have no answers to these questions)

These are pretty uncharted waters, as no developed democracy in history has faced such a war and occupation and at the same time the question whether or not to postpone important elections.

I see some advantage for some kind of poll to be held in free parts of Ukraine and among the diaspora, to gauge and affirm the level of support for the current course of action and general goals, but agree that it could be a major distraction - especially if an opposition of any sort emerges as victorious or even just at formidable results short of a majority.
Perhaps some sort of temporary "war presidency" or "war parliament" could be elected, with a provision that new elections must take place ASAP following either a stable armistice or the re-conquest of a significant percentage of the occupied territories.

 

[Oystein]

The only people "concerned" that it will look bad if Ukraine doesn't hold elections are those who want Ukraine to look bad.

Those who support Ukraine against Russia understand that it can be legitimate to postpone elections during wartime, and will support Ukraine if it takes this route.

Is there anything at all that Ukraine could possibly do that would make even you end your support?

 

[SpitfireIX]

The last thing Ukraine needs right now is the inevitable uncertainties caused by an election. Postpone the polls until after the war. It's the only smart thing to do.

That's perfectly logical; the problem is that it hands a major propaganda victory to Ukraine's enemies. In addition to votes during the War of 1812 and World War II, the United States held elections while there was a civil war going on, with balloting unable to take place in several states that were controlled by secessionists.

 

[theprestige]

What if the war "never" ends?
Or freezes indefinitely, flaring up every now and then?
By what criteria should a decision be made to finally go to polls?
(I have no answers to these questions)

Good. You're not supposed to have answers to these questions. They're for the Ukrainian people to consider and answer for themselves, as they see fit.

These are pretty uncharted waters, as no developed democracy in history has faced such a war and occupation and at the same time the question whether or not to postpone important elections.

I think Ukraine will be able to navigate these waters just fine.

I see some advantage for some kind of poll to be held in free parts of Ukraine and among the diaspora, to gauge and affirm the level of support for the current course of action and general goals, but agree that it could be a major distraction - especially if an opposition of any sort emerges as victorious or even just at formidable results short of a majority.

Perhaps some sort of temporary "war presidency" or "war parliament" could be elected, with a provision that new elections must take place ASAP following either a stable armistice or the re-conquest of a significant percentage of the occupied territories.

It's quite literally none of your business.

Consider two reasonable premises: Zelensky wants to end the Russian occupation of Ukraine. Zelensky knows he needs the support of the Ukrainian people, in order to accomplish this.

From these premises we can conclude that therefore, Zelensky will to the best of his ability, using the best tools available to him try to determine the will of his citizens and what is necessary to maintain their support for his government and its wartime policies.

You don't need to come up with ideas for him to try, or things you think he "should" do, to look respectable in your eyes. Not unless you really are withdrawing your respect and support for Ukraine if Zelensky postpones elections. Is that your position? You'll stop supporting Ukraine if Zelensky postpones elections?

Is there anything at all that Ukraine could possibly do that would make even you end your support?

Certainly. But postponing elections in the middle of an existential conflict isn't it.

Why do you ask? If Ukraine postpones elections, will it make you end your support? You seem more concerned with Ukraine putting on a show, than with Ukraine putting up a fight.