[Continuation] The Russian Invasion of Ukraine part 9

[crescent]

So the collapse in support has happened far sooner than I predicted.

The collapse is more political than popular and seems limited to America, for whatever that is worth.

But for now I despair of any significant American aid package until at least after the election. Or after the inauguration. If the election goes badly, maybe never.

I don't post much on the subject anymore because it is depressing. Donald Trump is now back in full absolute control of the Republican party and is determined to see Ukraine lose. Those GOP sheep will do what their shepherd demands. I think most conservatives would strongly prefer a Ukrainian victory but the tribalism wins out so they'll vote for Trump.

Europe at least is holding up.

 

[Dr.Sid]

It's never fight or die. It's usually fight or hope it's not so bad .. and then die.

 

[lobosrul5]

So the collapse in support has happened far sooner than I predicted. It's because I wasn't being smart. Trump doesn't even need to be in office to scupper a border deal!

I'd say it's time for Ukraine to give up, if Russia wasn't so damned incompetent to begin with! I've seen some saying that NATO has underestimated Russia's ability to produce war materiel. Counter to that, Russia needs to spend 30% of its budget next year on the war (and counting internal security maybe up to 40%). How long can that be sustained? At this point, for both sides, it's a case of having to hold on until the other reaches the bottom.

I make no predictions at this time.

Thats a statement not in evidence. We have no idea what NATO actually, in secret, thinks Russian's war production capabilities are. We have milbloggers, and journalist opinion and analysis, hell we may even have NATO press releases and they could all be contrary to what NATO intelligence really believes.

OTOH, Russia has been trying to take one city in Ukraine, Avdiivka, for 4 months. And they have not. My assertion months ago that the Russian Army cannot conduct a successful/meaningful offensive operation, still holds true. They're pulling out more and more old beat up ****, operated by less well trained solders, with poor morale. And it shows. Ukraine shows no signs of giving up at present.

If Trump wins and the USA cannot get aide to Ukraine will EU/NATO support be enough in 2025 for Ukraine to keep fighting? Thats the real question. If we (USA) do get our heads unstuck from our anuses, I do believe Ukraine will prevail in the end.

ETA: Ukraine is now receiving some priorly committed USA support in the form of the GLSDB's. Could be a very effective weapon for them.

https://dsm.forecastinternational.c...iameter-bombs-to-ukraine-reportedly-imminent/

 

[theprestige]

GLSDBs bring the capabilities of next-gen smart bombs to a nation without an air force. So that's nice for Ukraine.

 

[Steve]

It's never fight or die. It's usually fight or hope it's not so bad .. and then die.

Perhaps you need a reminder that Ukraine has previous experience with Russian occupation. They know full well that it will not be 'not so bad", and that millions of Ukrainians will die if Russia is successful. They have absolutely nothing to lose by continuing the fight and killing as many Russians as they possibly can.

 

[Jimbo07]

Thats a statement not in evidence. We have no idea what NATO actually, in secret, thinks Russian's war production capabilities are. We have milbloggers, and journalist opinion and analysis, hell we may even have NATO press releases and they could all be contrary to what NATO intelligence really believes.

Right. You have heads of countries and armed forces (Estonia, German military, etc.) saying that Russia has more available than people want to believe.

However, we're just going to base our hopes on the fact that NATO has super secret intelligence that it's not sharing. I mean, that's trivially true. Organizations (even private companies) have intelligence that they don't share. We, as the public, don't have access to that evidence, though.

The collapse of Russia's economy has not been swift. The collapse of Russia's military has not been swift. The collapse of their body politic has not been swift. People in the West must be very careful not to engage in wishful thinking about Ukraine's chances.

If we (USA) do get our heads unstuck from our anuses, I do believe Ukraine will prevail in the end.

Well, yes, that's my point exactly. With adequate Western support, Ukraine can still survive. Without it? Question mark. Russia's tolerance for greivous losses has many rethinking (especially wrt not enough munitions in the West). It makes me angry that Western politicians still want to make defence cuts to score political points.

 

[Mike!]

Clearly Ukraine is getting its ass kicked daily, time to wrap it up.

Ukraine’s Defence Forces are persistently inflicting losses on the Russian occupying army, killing over 800 Russian soldiers and destroying five tanks and 18 artillery systems over the past 24 hours alone.

Details: The total combat losses of the Russian forces between 24 February 2022 and 5 February 2024 are estimated to be as follows [figures in parentheses represent the latest losses – ed.]:

approximately 389,560 (+810) military personnel;
6,348 (+5) tanks;
11,822 (+4) armoured combat vehicles;
9,349 (+18) artillery systems;
979 (+0) multiple-launch rocket systems;
664 (+1) air defence systems;
332 (+0) fixed-wing aircraft;
324 (+0) helicopters;
7,173 (+0) strategic and tactical UAVs;
1,848 (+0) cruise missiles;
24 (+0) ships and boats;
1 (+0) submarines;
12,412 (+19) vehicles and tankers;
1,486 (+7) special vehicles and other equipment.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/02/5/7440395/

And that's with one hand tied behind their back.

 

[theprestige]

Right. You have heads of countries and armed forces (Estonia, German military, etc.) saying that Russia has more available than people want to believe.

NATO representatives saying that Moscow has more resources than people want to believe is not at all the same thing as NATO itself underestimating those resources. You seem to have switched horses midway through this conversation.

 

[Jimbo07]

NATO representatives saying that Moscow has more resources than people want to believe is not at all the same thing as NATO itself underestimating those resources. You seem to have switched horses midway through this conversation.

"we must not underestimate Russia."

"Russia's economy is on a war footing..."

"Putin has a high tolerance for casualties. And Russian aims in Ukraine have not changed."

- Jens Stoltenberg via Business Insider

Crucially, General Sanders insisted that the potential scale of the conflict in years to come must not be underestimated.

- CNN

...fresh intelligence on Russia’s ability to produce ammunition and recruit troops has prompted a re-evaluation among NATO allies and a spate of warnings to prepare for a long-term conflict.

Martin Herem, the commander of the Estonian Defense Forces, said predictions that Russian forces would reach the limits of their resources haven’t come true

- Bloomberg

and so on...

At no point did I say that NATO doesn't have secret intelligence representing the alliance's estimation of Russian resources one way or another.

However, the rest of us, everyone here, only have access to publicly available sources. Based on a lack of available evidence, and without continued Western support, it is just as wrong to predict great success for Ukraine, as it is to predict total doom.

So, how have I changed horses? Further, if new evidence came in (on any issue, really), wouldn't changing horses be exactly what I should be doing?

 

[theprestige]

and so on...

At no point did I say that NATO doesn't have secret intelligence representing the alliance's estimation of Russian resources one way or another.

However, the rest of us, everyone here, only have access to publicly available sources. Based on a lack of available evidence, and without continued Western support, it is just as wrong to predict great success for Ukraine, as it is to predict total doom.

So, how have I changed horses? Further, if new evidence came in (on any issue, really), wouldn't changing horses be exactly what I should be doing?

Horse One:

"NATO is underestimating Moscow's capacity for war."

Horse Two:

"NATO reps are saying Moscow's capacity for war is greater than people want to believe."

Now it seems like you're moving back to Horse One. However, "NATO reps say Moscow must not be underestimated" is not quite the same thing as "NATO is underestimating Moscow".

That Bloomberg quote seems to be on point, though. Next time, just lead with that, instead of bouncing around between dissimilar claims as if they were the same claim.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Perhaps you need a reminder that Ukraine has previous experience with Russian occupation. They know full well that it will not be 'not so bad", and that millions of Ukrainians will die if Russia is successful. They have absolutely nothing to lose by continuing the fight and killing as many Russians as they possibly can.

Ukraine sure .. Europe and US, not so much. We are doing the bare minimum.

 

[Jimbo07]

Now it seems like you're moving back to Horse One. However, "NATO reps say Moscow must not be underestimated" is not quite the same thing as "NATO is underestimating Moscow".

That Bloomberg quote seems to be on point, though. Next time, just lead with that, instead of bouncing around between dissimilar claims as if they were the same claim.

Meh... it seems like splitting a pretty fine hair, especially when there are a collection of quotes. I went back further and last year found articles literally saying that the UK underestimated (past tense) Wagner operations, and there was a German one recently, too.

Both are a far cry from earlier in the war when Twitter (X) users (and some here) were all but saying "booyah! This is NATO hand me downs. Actual NATO could crush Russia in a week!" That's sure not what NATO is saying...

 

[angrysoba]

Okay, assuming you were in Tucker Carlson’s position and was able to interview Putin and wanted to avoid it being used as a propaganda stunt by the Kremlin, what would you ask him?

For example, our reports say you have lost XXXXX soldiers, are the people of Russia accepting of those losses?

Why did you blow up that pipeline?

Why were your thoughts when your attack on Kiev was so easily repelled?

Just how much of Ukraine are you trying to steal for yourself anyway?

Stuff like that. Any more?

 

[theprestige]

Okay, assuming you were in Tucker Carlson’s position and was able to interview Putin and wanted to avoid it being used as a propaganda stunt by the Kremlin, what would you ask him?

For example, our reports say you have lost XXXXX soldiers, are the people of Russia accepting of those losses?

Why did you blow up that pipeline?

Why were your thoughts when your attack on Kiev was so easily repelled?

Just how much of Ukraine are you trying to steal for yourself anyway?

Stuff like that. Any more?

The brave people of Russia accept these losses as a necessary price to pay for our freedom. My heart goes out to all the patriotic Russians who have lost loved ones in the unnecessary war Ukraine has forced on us.

I didn't; the Gay Jew Nazi NATO puppet Zelensky did.

The attack on Kiev was a feint. It worked perfectly, just as planned.

Ukraine is for the Ukrainian people. We wish to restore it from those who stole it.

Etc.

Putin won't give an interview to a hostile interviewer, and would not answer the questions honestly in any case. There's no point even fantasizing about it.

 

[angrysoba]

The brave people of Russia accept these losses as a necessary price to pay for our freedom. My heart goes out to all the patriotic Russians who have lost loved ones in the unnecessary war Ukraine has forced on us.

I didn't; the Gay Jew Nazi NATO puppet Zelensky did.

The attack on Kiev was a feint. It worked perfectly, just as planned.

Ukraine is for the Ukrainian people. We wish to restore it from those who stole it.

Etc.

Putin won't give an interview to a hostile interviewer, and would not answer the questions honestly in any case. There's no point even fantasizing about it.

I have no doubt that Tucker Carlson is playing Lord Haw Haw here in the guise of offering “balance” but it will of course be effective among the Putin supporters on the right in the US. I will expect some kind of apologetics among the GOP for Putin as a result of this (not that it wasn’t there already), but of course people like Carlson would shoot back that he is merely being a journalist. We know he is being disingenuous, but somebody claiming to be a journalist merely interviewing Putin from a sense of media ethics also should be challenged on that. If he is being a serious journalist he should ask serious questions and be open about the restrictions put on him.

 

[icerat]

Why were your thoughts when your attack on Kiev was so easily repelled?

The attack on Kiev was a feint. It worked perfectly, just as planned.

Kyiv, please.

 

[theprestige]

Anyway, Zelensky has signed a presidential order establishing drone forces as a separate branch of the Ukrainian military. So that's an interesting development. I still believe that drones are a new weapon and doctrine in every branch, so this seems bizarre to me. But I recognize that Ukraine has more practical experience with drones in war than anyone else in the world right now. So I'm probably wrong.

Unless the new drone branch is going to be concerned mainly with field testing new drones and doctrines, and then delivering them to the other branches. Then we're both right.

 

[lobosrul5]

Meh... it seems like splitting a pretty fine hair, especially when there are a collection of quotes. I went back further and last year found articles literally saying that the UK underestimated (past tense) Wagner operations, and there was a German one recently, too.

Both are a far cry from earlier in the war when Twitter (X) users (and some here) were all but saying "booyah! This is NATO hand me downs. Actual NATO could crush Russia in a week!" That's sure not what NATO is saying...

In the early few months I was pretty sure Russia was going to win. I'll admit to being overconfident last summer wrt Ukraines offensive capabilities

Ukraine is indeed fighting with NATO hand me downs. A full scale NATO op with the USA would have tanks in Red Square in days.

 

[Aridas]

In the early few months I was pretty sure Russia was going to win. I'll admit to being overconfident last summer wrt Ukraines offensive capabilities

Ukraine is indeed fighting with NATO hand me downs. A full scale NATO op with the USA would have tanks in Red Square in days.

Especially at the moment, because if NATO were to assault Russia nearly anywhere along the shared borders, Russia's mostly undefended, on top of a very significant gap in force quality. For better or worse, that's not gonna happen, though. Both because of nukes and the part where NATO's not an offensive alliance, attacking Russia itself would only happen if things are notably worse than they are. Driving Russia out of Ukraine would be/is much more difficult, given force concentration and distribution, but would be a far, far more likely conflict. Still not likely, though, unless Russia really, really provokes NATO.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I have no doubt that Tucker Carlson is playing Lord Haw Haw here in the guise of offering “balance” but it will of course be effective among the Putin supporters on the right in the US. I will expect some kind of apologetics among the GOP for Putin as a result of this (not that it wasn’t there already), but of course people like Carlson would shoot back that he is merely being a journalist. We know he is being disingenuous, but somebody claiming to be a journalist merely interviewing Putin from a sense of media ethics also should be challenged on that. If he is being a serious journalist he should ask serious questions and be open about the restrictions put on him.

He is actually a secret agent, and will kill Putin using his hands only.

 

[angrysoba]

He is actually a secret agent, and will kill Putin using his hands only.

If he does, I'll respect that.

 

[Mike!]

He is actually a secret agent, and will kill Putin using his hands only.

With his face buried deep between Putin's butt cheeks so he suspects nothing.

 

[Dr.Sid]

With his face buried deep between Putin's butt cheeks so he suspects nothing.

It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it !

 

[crescent]

The U.S. is ramping up production of 155mm artillery ammo (twitter link).

It was a 28k/month in October 2023.
The goal is to get up to 60k/month by Oct 2024,
75k/month by April 2025
100k/month by Oct 2025

Timing depends upon supplemental appropriations bill, new construction, and "an entirely new way" of making them. Without the supplemental they apparently can still reach the 80k mark but not the 100k mark.

With Trump controlling the GOP and vested in supporting Russia, this doesn't feel to me like a sure thing - they will find excuses to fight this tooth and nail. Even if Trump supported it, the "entirely new way" thing sounds like the sort of military development process that can be subject to enormous cost overruns and time delays.

 

[theprestige]

somebody claiming to be a journalist merely interviewing Putin from a sense of media ethics also should be challenged on that

Agreed, but I'd rather this thread stick to the topic of the war itself. There's a thread for the US political side of things, for people who enjoy handwringing about Carlson and his ilk.

Kyiv, please.: thumbsup :

I'm pretty sure Carlson and Putin spell it the other way.

 

[lobosrul5]

The U.S. is ramping up production of 155mm artillery ammo (twitter link).

It was a 28k/month in October 2023.
The goal is to get up to 60k/month by Oct 2024,
75k/month by April 2025
100k/month by Oct 2025

Timing depends upon supplemental appropriations bill, new construction, and "an entirely new way" of making them. Without the supplemental they apparently can still reach the 80k mark but not the 100k mark.

With Trump controlling the GOP and vested in supporting Russia, this doesn't feel to me like a sure thing - they will find excuses to fight this tooth and nail. Even if Trump supported it, the "entirely new way" think sounds like the sort of military development process that can be subject to enormous cost overruns and time delays.

It may not be so much in how much we make, or have the capability to make, but rather not sending them to Ukraine. And god ******* help us all, but the slim possibility that under a Trump presidency they are sold to Russia does exist.

 

[crescent]

It may not be so much in how much we make, or have the capability to make, but rather not sending them to Ukraine. And god ******* help us all, but the slim possibility that under a Trump presidency they are sold to Russia does exist.

I keep wondering about remaining stockpiles around the world and how much is kept on-hand for contingencies. Both with the U.S. but with other nations as well. And then I think that if production is ramping up such that the stockpiles could be resupplied a few years down the road, that might allow greater drawdown right now. Draw down supplies by sending more to Ukraine with real reassurance that they'll get resupplied soon.

Then again, Russia is well aware of stockpiles and the need to maintain them for contingency planning, which is (I think) part of why things heated up so much in the middle east. They are forcing us to keep to stocks stocked.

 

[icerat]

I keep wondering about remaining stockpiles around the world and how much is kept on-hand for contingencies.

This is a significant issue in Europe not just for ammunition, but all military equipment and supplies. It's dawned that we are not remotely ready for the very real possibility of war with Russia. Military leaders, while supportive of Ukraine, are actively advising against too many donations as limited stocks are required for potential defence.

Shifting of materials from places like Japan and South Korea is thus significantly important.

But IMO it's a scandal it's taken 2 years for Europe to seriously plan for ramping up domestic military production.

 

[lobosrul5]

I keep wondering about remaining stockpiles around the world and how much is kept on-hand for contingencies. Both with the U.S. but with other nations as well. And then I think that if production is ramping up such that the stockpiles could be resupplied a few years down the road, that might allow greater drawdown right now. Draw down supplies by sending more to Ukraine with real reassurance that they'll get resupplied soon.

Then again, Russia is well aware of stockpiles and the need to maintain them for contingency planning, which is (I think) part of why things heated up so much in the middle east. They are forcing us to keep to stocks stocked.

I do wonder about those things too... but two points I'll make:

1) By giving 155mm shells to Ukraine we need less for ourselves and NATO partners. With the assumption that Ukraine is using them well anyways (seems they are). Every Russian soldier or piece of equipment Ukraine destroys is one less NATO needs to worry about in case of direct war with Russia. Its in essence a zero sum "game". We give Ukraine one shell, we need one less for ourselves.
2) I do not foresee more than the remotest chance of a long drawn out ground war between the USA/allies and Iran. In fact I think the odds of US troops on Iranian soil is itself very remote. That will be a war of us just knocking them back with missile and airstrikes and a naval blockade that prevents them from supporting their militias. I though I do wonder what it would look like if they invaded Iraq. How much support would we need to give the Iraqi army?

I don't think we really need to worry about having a huge stockpile of artillery.

 

[Aridas]

It may not be so much in how much we make, or have the capability to make, but rather not sending them to Ukraine. And god ******* help us all, but the slim possibility that under a Trump presidency they are sold to Russia does exist.

Unfortunately, I find that "slim possibility" to be easily envisioned, given prior behavior. Not certain, but far less slim than it would have been under anyone who would actually work to further the US' interests, rather than sabotage them for a pittance.

 

[icerat]

1) By giving 155mm shells to Ukraine we need less for ourselves and NATO partners.

I don't think military planners think that way, nor do I think they should. It's not impossible - though very unlikely - that Ukraine defences collapse and Ukraine falls in weeks, or some kind of ceasefire agreement is reached.

Various intelligence assessments have suggested that Russia has active plans to open a new front in Europe within 5 years. In those scenarios, no domestic military planner is going to let their own stockpiles be depleted - especially things like shells, when this war has clearly shown those stockpiles were naively small to begin with.

 

[lobosrul5]

I don't think military planners think that way, nor do I think they should. It's not impossible - though very unlikely - that Ukraine defences collapse and Ukraine falls in weeks, or some kind of ceasefire agreement is reached.

Various intelligence assessments have suggested that Russia has active plans to open a new front in Europe within 5 years. In those scenarios, no domestic military planner is going to let their own stockpiles be depleted - especially things like shells, when this war has clearly shown those stockpiles were naively small to begin with.

If we were planning to let Ukraine stockpile a large amount of shells that would be relevant. And from the countries perspective that have a border with Russia, thats also pretty reasonable. From the USA's perspective not so much. We have no need for a large artillery stockpile for our own self defense. We have the 3 largest air forces in the world.

 

[Jimbo07]

Not certain, but far less slim than it would have been under anyone who would actually work to further the US' interests, rather than sabotage them for a pittance.

Not even a pittance, necessarily, just even any slight perceived advantage. Self before country and all that.

This line is really the only path I see in the 'resolve it in 24 hours scenario.' Someone sits Ukraine down and says, "Look. Either you freeze the war, or we switch sides." Of course, to everyone else, it would make the US look like a feckless ally, but that's not important to someone who puts self before country.

 

[Ziggurat]

It may not be so much in how much we make, or have the capability to make, but rather not sending them to Ukraine. And god ******* help us all, but the slim possibility that under a Trump presidency they are sold to Russia does exist.

Um... Russia cannot use 155mm NATO ammunition. Why would they want to buy it, from us or anyone else?

 

[lobosrul5]

Um... Russia cannot use 155mm NATO ammunition. Why would they want to buy it, from us or anyone else?

Because in such a scenario we also will sell them 155mm tubes? (towed artillery is pretty damned cheap)

 

[crescent]

Um... Russia cannot use 155mm NATO ammunition. Why would they want to buy it, from us or anyone else?

Because in such a scenario we also will sell them 155mm tubes? (towed artillery is pretty damned cheap)

Or get the guns from Iran or any other Russian allies that use 155mm. Or non-allies that also might be willing to sell them 155 artillery (cough cough Hungary cough cough).

That plus what they have captured from Ukraine, maybe a dozen or more by now.

(But I do agree that Russian purchase of large amounts of 155 mm ammo seems very unlikely).

 

[sackett]

Now I'm sitting in on a briefing session where Donny Buttspurs reveals his brilliant new plan to make Putton happy while raking heap $$$$ into certain offshore accounts.

"Muh, we're gonna sell Vlad artillerary shells! He needs 'em, we gottem! Win-win!"

[embarrassed ahem] "Mr. President, the Russians use 152 mm, we use 155 mm. The shells won't fit --"

"Don't gimme yer funny numbers! I know from numbers! 53, 56, so what's the big deal! Vlad tells his guys to push harder, they fit, bang! You donno nuthen! Hmaah!"

"Hey, watch it with the ketchup! This is my new suit! Look, we'll call Puttern and fly it by him, but --"

"My bud's gunna love it! He loves all my ideas! Next week we'll sell him calvary sabers! Rooshens always need 'em for crowd control 'n stuff! [coughing, spitting, scraping chairs] Wuh! Hey, where's everbody goin'? I'm not done! I'll never be done!" [door closes firmly]

 

[Ziggurat]

Because in such a scenario we also will sell them 155mm tubes? (towed artillery is pretty damned cheap)

Are we also going to train them? This is getting more and more farfetched.

If Trump wants to help Russia, selling them 155 artillery isn't how he would do it. I don't think he will help Russia, but this is not a plausible avenue for doing so.

 

[lobosrul5]

Are we also going to train them? This is getting more and more farfetched.

If Trump wants to help Russia, selling them 155 artillery isn't how he would do it. I don't think he will help Russia, but this is not a plausible avenue for doing so.

Hmm, I'd be interested to know how difficult operating an M777 is compared to Russian towed arty. Print instructions in Cyrillic and spend a month or two training Russian instructors would be all thats needed I'd think. ETA: and without any training necessary on fancy guided munitions. Standard shells only.

We'd already have sunk costs into building new artillery factories, its not a weapon that can be any sort of direct threat against the USA in Russian hands. It'd be an ideal way for an American POTUS to support the Russian military (especially if we sell it on credit). Is it far-fetched that Trump would want to do it....... eh its borderline. I'll admit its far-fetched for even a GOP Congress to authorize it. If they did its the end of the world order as we know it.

 

[theprestige]

It'd be an ideal way for an American POTUS to support the Russian military (especially if we sell it on credit). Is it far-fetched that Trump would want to do it....... eh its borderline. I'll admit its far-fetched for even a GOP Congress to authorize it. If they did its the end of the world order as we know it.

Not ideal at all, since it involves the transfer of arms and the approval of Congress.

Much more ideal, and much easier for the President to do, would be to share with Moscow all that sweet NATO recon data that Ukraine is getting. AWACs, JSTARS, Rivet Joint, Global Hawk, recon satellites... that would probably up Moscow's game a lot more than four score towed 155mm artillery tubes.