[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Werthead, on 16 December 2023 - 02:05 PM, said:

This analysis of the cost-benefits of allowing a Russian victory or pushing for a Ukrainian victory is excellent. It points out the tremendous geostrategic advantages and cost savings of keeping Russian troops on the far side of Ukraine from the rest of NATO.

It does, however, take it as read that the United States, now and in the future, will remain a NATO member and there are not elements in the United States that do not care about Ukraine or indeed Europe. The idea that America will simply happily walk away and let all of Europe fall to a Russian military push is unfathomable to a lot of institutions, but it's clearly not unfathomable to some in the American political system.

Walk away? I imagine some would like to join in (to split the spoils with Putin)... including Trump, if he thinks he can get enough people to along with it at minimal additional personal risk to his life.

Quote

If Donald Trump wins the next election, he will attempt to turn the men and women of the United States armed forces into praetorians loyal not to the Constitution, but only to him. This project will likely be among his administration's highest priorities. It will not be easy: The overwhelming majority of America's service people are professionals and patriots. [...]

If reelected, Trump would attempt to gain authoritarian control of the Defense Department's uppermost levels from the very beginning. There are more Anthony Tatas and Douglas Macgregors out there, and Trump's allies are likely already seeking to identify them. If the Senate refused to confirm Trump's appointees, it wouldn't matter much: Trump has learned that he can keep rotating people through acting positions, daring the Senate to stop him.

The career civil servants underneath these appointees[...] by law, cannot be fired at will, a problem Trump tried to remedy in the last months of his administration by proposing a new category of government appointments (Schedule F) that would have converted some of the most important civil-service positions into political appointments directly controlled by the White House.

[...] Trump would likely rely on former officers such as Miller and fringe-dwelling civilians such as Patel, but he would also almost certainly find at least a few serving senior officers—he would not need many—who would accept his offer to abandon their oath. Together, they would make a run at changing the nature of the armed forces.

This is not abstract theorizing. The Heritage Foundation recently released "Project 2025," a right-wing blueprint for the next Republican president's administration. [...]

Today, military bases are subjected to a constant barrage of Fox News in almost every area with a television, and [...] I often heard senior officers repeating almost verbatim some of the most overheated and paranoid talking points about politics and national affairs from the network's prime-time hosts. Some of these officers would be tempted to answer Trump's call.

The rest of the members of the professional military, despite their concerns, would likely follow their instincts and default to the orders of their chain of command. The American political system was never intended to cope with someone like Trump; the military is trained and organized to obey, not resist, the orders of the civilian commander in chief. [...]

Trump's plans would likely use this obedience to the chain of command to exploit an unfortunate vulnerability in the modern American armed forces: The military[...] has a political-literacy problem. Too many people in uniform no longer have a basic grounding in the constitutional foundation of American government and the civil-military relationship.

A Military Loyal to Trump (msn.com)

On what pretext? That's an interesting question. I'm sure Trump, Putin, &co could come up with something (maybe they'll ask ChatGPT 6.660?... that would certainly be an interesting focus group to be in...).

Though they may want to hurry up:

Quote

The British military—the leading U.S. military ally and Europe's biggest defense spender—has only around 150 deployable tanks and perhaps a dozen serviceable long-range artillery pieces. So bare was the cupboard that last year the British military considered sourcing multiple rocket launchers from museums to upgrade and donate to Ukraine, an idea that was dropped. France, the next biggest spender, has fewer than 90 heavy artillery pieces, equivalent to what Russia loses roughly every month on the Ukraine battlefield. Denmark has no heavy artillery, submarines or air-defense systems. Germany's army has enough ammunition for two days of battle.

Alarm Grows Over Weakened Militaries and Empty Arsenals in Europe - WSJ

The Drumpfs could finally exact their vengeance on the country that deported them for skipping out on mandatory military service...

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 16 December 2023 - 02:50 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Quote

Ukraine is developing a “drowning not waving” problem. It is struggling to say clearly how badly the war is going.

Giving a candid public assessment of how poorly a conflict is going can be an unwise move as it can result in morale and support draining. [...]

Yet in truth, the most useful headline for Kyiv should be how unutterably bleak the frontlines are for them now. In nearly every direction, the news is grim. [...]

[...] So long as these [air defense] protections continue, Ukraine might have a chance of entering spring with its infrastructure intact. But air defenses might be the first to be impacted, according to the Biden administration, when US money runs out.

[...] be in no doubt: No US or EU money – or just one of those failing – quite likely means most of Ukraine will fall under Russian occupation in the next two years.

[...] Yet Zelensky faces an ally in the US so split and ignorant in part of its body politic, he must pretend things are not that bad. To admit Ukraine is struggling bolsters the argument there is no point funding a loser. If he says Ukraine is winning, then why does he need more help? If it is a stalemate, then surely that is not too bad after two years?

Analysis: Ukraine has had a terrible week. Blame the US and the EU | CNN

[Mentalist]

Ukraine also has a systemic problem of under-reporting threats, and letting the frontline brigades take too much punishment, until things hit a breaking point- as it happened in Soledar, or earlier in Toshkivka, leading to the collapse of Lysychans'k axis.
At which point, another "heroic defense" commences that lasts several months and results in a completely demolished city, but the orcs inevitably gain more ground.

There's a lack of systemic coordination, and no back-up fortifications. So once the 1st line is overrun (after suffering thousands of casualties but ultimately exhausting and overrunning the defenders), fallback positions are typically crude earthworks that are far more vulnerable to mass artillery fire.

Ukraine can continue inflicting serious losses. But Russia has enough human resources to take this on the chin. Unless Ukraine has sufficient equipment surplus to deliver a casualty ratio of 30:1 on a consistent basis.

[the broken]

You're right about the existing stock, but there is more to it than that, The UK has provided 300,000 shells by themselves, South Korea has a smilar number available if they can be convinced, Germany has ordered 68,000, and there is still time for a lot to get there before March.

Seems to be a lot of black and white thinking, where lack of instant success is seen as inevitable failure. There's no particular sign of an imminent breakthrough, or even that they are particularly on the back foot. It'sa just that the offensive wasn't a wild success, and the US factions took that and ran with it because it's useful for them politically.

Russian and North Korean figures are likely to be propaganda'd up, I'd be careful about taking those at face value. Russia has a big army, but it also has a ginormous border to defend, it'll never be able to use most of it in Ukraine. The thing with the stealth bombers needed on both fronts- yes, if they were bombing the heartland or Russia and China, but even in a war there'd be no real need to do that, the point would be to attack the invasion fleet for Taiwan (amphibious landing are very difficult, even if they're unopposed.)

In a Nato War, NATO nations might be out artilleried, but if it came to that they can unleash their air force, which has not been in action so far.

The most useful headline for Ukraine isn't amping up the bleakness. That's the most useful headline for both Republicans and Democrats, because it helps them get elected. Sadly, the situation on the ground appears to be secondary to that, which was the failing in Afghanistan as well.

[Werthead]

the broken, on 18 December 2023 - 12:40 AM, said:

In a Nato War, NATO nations might be out artilleried, but if it came to that they can unleash their air force, which has not been in action so far.

The most useful headline for Ukraine isn't amping up the bleakness. That's the most useful headline for both Republicans and Democrats, because it helps them get elected. Sadly, the situation on the ground appears to be secondary to that, which was the failing in Afghanistan as well.

As one of the articles pointed out, if NATO and Russia engaged in hostilities right now, NATO aircraft would be able to swing through Ukrainian airspace and engage Russian forces from multiple angles and points of attack. If Russia takes all of Ukraine that becomes more difficult. Russia S-300 and S-400 AA systems aren't as absolutely fantastic as they've always been made out to be (the S-500 is more concerning, but only a handful of units exist, all deployed to defend Moscow) but against F-15s, F-16s and Eurofighters, they'd still be pretty effective. F-35s seem to be invisible to even their upgraded radar systems (reportedly tested by Israeli F-35s flying high-altitude test flights over the Iranian border in practice runs for attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities), and F-22s may also be effective against them, but it'd be a bit up in the air if NATO would have enough stealth-capable aircraft to engage Russia's air defences on the scale needed to then allow the vastly more numerous standard aircraft to engage (Russia's conventional aircraft fleet would not be a major consideration: Su-57s are almost non-existent in numbers and Su-35s, 34s and below would be absolute mincemeat for western aircraft). Of course, Russia doesn't have vast numbers of S-400s in particular, either.

I do agree the media and politicians seem to be a bit too keen to cover things in hyperbole: Ukraine was probably never going to overrun the front and collapse the entire Russian line overnight this summer, and it's not going to fall next week. But certainly life can get a lot more difficult for Ukraine than it is now, even if a full-scale nationwide collapse is unlikely in the short term.

These articles also fail to be full-spectrum analyses taking into account other elements, such as the political sphere inside Russia which has become more unstable than it has for a generation.

[the broken]

Okay, that's interesting, unironically tell me more. I did read that article, but what does 'pretty effective' mean in this context? Does it mean that NATO air force has to completely stay out of reach of the air defences or be destroyed, or just that they would take casualties?

[Werthead]

the broken, on 18 December 2023 - 10:48 PM, said:

Okay, that's interesting, unironically tell me more. I did read that article, but what does 'pretty effective' mean in this context? Does it mean that NATO air force has to completely stay out of reach of the air defences or be destroyed, or just that they would take casualties?

They would take casualties. The limited numbers of S-400s means that NATO would probably be willing to take casualties to destroy the majority of them, and then NATO airpower would wreak havoc on advancing Russian ground forces.

The problem is that the Russians know that, so their plan would probably be to sustain massed casualties advancing through the Baltic States to the Polish border, then hunker down and try to build massive defences with the Baltic States taken. They might also invade Poland and Finland, but possibly to create negotiating space (i.e. they'd "reluctantly" give up Finnish and Polish territory to retain the Baltics in a ceasefire agreement, threatening nukes if the Baltic States were to be liberated).

This post has been edited by Werthead: 20 December 2023 - 12:23 PM

[the broken]

That's more plausible than the usual doom saying, but are the Russian army really going to be in any condition to get into another war any time soon? They're pretty ground down as it is, It's possible, but a lot of things have to go wrong.

Edit: It would reflect pretty poorly on NATO if they decided not to interfere because they might take casualties.

This post has been edited by the broken: 21 December 2023 - 07:45 PM

[Cause]

I read Ukraine will start recalling and conscripting it’s foreign nationals. No idea how that works, they would have to volunteer to return, Ukraine could at best arrest them when they renter the country if they don’t?

Sad that it’s come to that though.

I often have wondered how I would react to a war or conscription. There has never been a risk of my conscription and no cause during my lifetime has ever seemed worth my life, nor has any cause threatened it. I feel pity for all the men who VOLUNTEERED to fight in WW1 to die by the score and really achieved nothing. It’s different if your home is under direct attack but also very few countries these days rely on conscription to keep back an actual threat. Can’t imagine what it must be like to be a foreign student or worker and than one day have this hanging over your head.

[Werthead]

Nice. Ukraine apparently lured 3 Su-34 Russian aircraft into attacking apparently-exposed positions in Kherson Oblast, but they had redeployed a Patriot battery closer to the front. All three aircraft was lost.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Quote

[...] the Kremlin has indicated its interest in striking a deal to halt the war — so long as it could still declare victory.

[...] Addressing his generals on Tuesday, [Putin] boasted that Ukraine was so beleaguered that Russia’s invading troops were doing “what we want.”

“We won’t give up what’s ours,” he pledged, adding dismissively, “If they want to negotiate, let them negotiate.”

But [...] Putin has been [...] signaling through intermediaries since at least September that he is open to a cease-fire that freezes the fighting along the current lines[...]

[...] Putin also sent out feelers for a cease-fire deal a year earlier, in the fall of 2022[...] That quiet overture, not previously reported, came after Ukraine routed Russia’s army [...] Putin indicated that he was satisfied with Russia’s captured territory and ready for an armistice [...]

[...] While deploying fiery public rhetoric, Mr. Putin privately telegraphs a desire to declare victory and move on.

[...] “He really is willing to stop at the current positions,” [...] “He’s not willing to retreat one meter.”

[...] senior American officials said they did not believe that any prominent Ukrainian politician could agree at this time to a deal leaving Russia with so much Ukrainian territory.

[...] Many in the West are skeptical of a cease-fire because they say Mr. Putin would rearm for a future assault.

Breaking News: Putin Quietly Signals He Is Open to a Cease-Fire in Ukraine - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

But it would also give the West time to rearm Ukraine... perhaps even to automate more of the war so that Russia's population advantage becomes less of an advantage. OTOH Russia would have more time to fortify that extra territory and try to eliminate remaining resistance....

Putin's Trojan Christmas present?... with poisonous bombs and shrapnel inside?...

[Werthead]

Azath Vitr (D, on 23 December 2023 - 03:23 PM, said:

But it would also give the West time to rearm Ukraine... perhaps even to automate more of the war so that Russia's population advantage becomes less of an advantage. OTOH Russia would have more time to fortify that extra territory and try to eliminate remaining resistance....

Putin's Trojan Christmas present?... with poisonous bombs and shrapnel inside?...

The deal would be untenable within Ukraine. It's more likely designed to further split the allies, who would argue the strengths and minuses of the position.

Obviously, it would freeze the conflict on current borders, with Russia failing to take full control of any of the fourth oblasts it has claimed. Compared to the view from 22 February 2022, Ukraine's current status would appear to be almost unbelievably positive: it has retaken over 50% of the territory claimed by Russia in the initial invasion and killed or wounded around 300,000 Russian soldiers, its most catastrophic loss of life since WWII. Ukraine would retain control over the overwhelming bulk of its pre-invasion territory and population. Despite being "the loser" in the conflict from one POV, Ukraine has established a reputation for tenacity, bravery, technological innovation on the battlefield and impressive strategic and tactical ability, and has somehow degraded and almost neutralised the Russian Black Sea Fleet despite not having a navy of its own. Ukraine would also emerge from the war with a technologically advanced military, with vast numbers of drones of varying sophistication (many of them home-grown), latest-generation battle tanks, incredibly precise artillery and fighter jets up to the upgraded F-16 level. Ukraine would also be able to halt its casualties growing, which, despite being grossly outnumbered by Russian casualties, are still very significant. The war ending would also allow Ukrainian civilians in exile to return home, improving the situation with the Ukrainian economy.

NATO would also continue to gain a substantial buffer between its own borders and those of Russia, and would retain a strong working alliance and relationship with Ukraine even if a peace deal forced Ukraine to remain outside NATO (some indications that Putin might move on this point, only if because it would take years for Ukraine to get close to accession and would likely be his successor's problem). The lines freezing where they are would also keep Russian forces far from Moldova, which the EU and NATO hopes to fully absorb into its sphere of influence.

From the Ukrainian perspective, the proposal is unacceptable. Ending the war where the lines are now would simply allow Russia to re-arm and attack again later on at a time and place of its choosing. It would also mean Ukraine de facto recognising its own dismemberment, which is a stupid thing to do. At the moment Russia is maintaining perilous lines of supply and communication across hostile territory with active insurgencies. Ending the war would allow Russia to fully consolidate those territories. Although ending the war would allow Ukraine to re-arm and rebuild, it would also allow Russia to do the same. The Ukrainian belief, fully justified, is that Russia would simply resume the war at a later date of its choosing, whether that's two years or five or fifteen, and allow it to keep carving off bits of Ukrainian territory until it collapses altogether.

At the moment Russia is also at least partially isolated as an international pariah (within certain limits). Ending the war with Putin and the Russian government unpunished would likely allow Russia to simply re-commence its former economic activity, especially if sanctions relief for Russia is included in the peace deal. Russia is economically isolated and damaged right now in a manner it won't be later on.

I can see the likes of the American Republicans arguing that Ukraine is approaching the limits of what it could do as a far smaller country than Russia with one-third the population and a much smaller economy, and it's better to fold now with it retaining 80% of its territory (bearing in mind some 10% of the remaining territory was lost before 2022). Further Russian offensives in the face of declining western support could carve off additional territory, even if only small amounts, before Ukraine accepts a deal less favourable than the one it has now. The argument is already circulating that Russia and Ukraine have both mounted massive attacks in 2023 and failed to make much headway, with the battle lines on 1 January 2024 not hugely changed from 1 January 2023 with a possible 100-200,000 dead on both sides in the meantime.

I don't see how this deal is viable for Kyiv right now, but it might do what Putin likely intends it to do: cause huge arguments in the halls of its allies and further erode financial aid for Ukraine.

[the broken]

Yeah, that's a deal to benefit Americans, not Ukrainians. The only reason to take it would be if they were on the verge of collapse, of which there is no indication.

Quote

I often have wondered how I would react to a war or conscription. There has never been a risk of my conscription and no cause during my lifetime has ever seemed worth my life, nor has any cause threatened it. I feel pity for all the men who VOLUNTEERED to fight in WW1 to die by the score and really achieved nothing. It’s different if your home is under direct attack but also very few countries these days rely on conscription to keep back an actual threat. Can’t imagine what it must be like to be a foreign student or worker and than one day have this hanging over your head.

One politician mentioned it in Germany, it's not like it's anything resembling a firm policy.


As for WW1, that's the British/American perspective. What if you were French or Belgian or Serbian etc? Austria Hungary and the Ottoman empire didn't grow back.

[Macros]

Is this mother's and wife's protest actually gathering momentum or wishful thinking by the Guardian?

[Mentalist]

Macros, on 25 December 2023 - 12:47 PM, said:

Is this mother's and wife's protest actually gathering momentum or wishful thinking by the Guardian?

Until they have a catalyst, it's a bunch of wishful thinking.

Duntsova (the independent former local TV anchor that had her grassroots campaign application denied by the Central Electoral Committee) was sort of hoping to tap into this so as to try to repeat the Belarussian miracle; but, obviously, Moscow isn't keen on allowing any chances of protests, so they won't make the mistake of letting a legitimately independent and uncontrolled candidate have a go at it.

The numbers of those affected aren't big enough to resonate throuout Russia. There's also still a class divide factor. Poorer families generally are more concerned with soldier's salaries and death benefits being paid on time, than with their actual lives. Those who go "keep your money, I want my husband/son/brother/cousin/father back" are relatively few. This middle class is disenfranchised and it's being actively alienated by propaganda as the ones least devoted to "Russian values" and most susceptible to "temptations of the West"

[Werthead]

Ukraine has managed to sink another Russian naval troop carrier, an impressive tally for a country with (effectively) no navy of its own.

This post has been edited by Werthead: 26 December 2023 - 01:54 PM

[Mentalist]

Most remarkable thing about this is that it's in Feodosiya, which is on the SE coast of Crimea, about 100km from the Kerch Straight. Unlike Sevastopol, which can be approached from the sea, the missiles would need to fly over basically the entirety of Crimea, as well as the occupied Left Bank Kherson Oblast' to hit.

And it was a precision strike with only 2 missiles, no decoys, unlike the earlier strike on the Kerch shipyards.

The ship was carrying either a shipment of ordnance or (some say) a fresh batch of Iranian Shahed drones. In either case, the spectacular secondary explosions meant the locals are finding scattered bits of [i] Novocherkassk {/i] in the circumference of about a kilometer away from the harbor, suggesting that the harbor won't be particularly useful for logistical/supply ops in the near future.

[Werthead]

Unconfirmed reports of a Ukrainian drone and missile attack on targets in and around Belgorod. Not clear on the extent of it.

Zelensky was on the front line today, visiting Ukrainian positions in Avdiivka less than 1km from the front.

A Russian missile overshot Polish airspace by around 20 miles, triggering air defences and sending fighters scrambling.

Another Russian civil aviation failure, a Boeing 735-500 making an emergency landing due to engine failure. At the moment it's looking like Russia will end 2023 with over ten times the number of civil aviation incidents it suffered in 2022.

Looks like Russia mounted another assault towards Kupiansk, which defenders had been bracing for for weeks. However, the Russians attacked directly into pre-zoned fire corridors and their main armoured column was destroyed almost immediately. The Ukrainians seemed a bit baffled by that (somehow, after two years of the Russians doing this stuff).

Also looks like a limited Russian counterattack in the Stepove area to shore up the flanks of Avdiivka got stopped in its tracks. Several armoured vehicles destroyed, possibly ten BMPs and several tanks. Russian sources apparently said the attack was extremely ill-advised and troops on the front advised them not to advance but they were overridden by superiors. It looks Ukraine hit them with artillery and possibly Bushmaster fire from a Bradley IFV (which is a genuinely terrifying sight, and one the Russians are becoming uncomfortably familiar with).

This post has been edited by Werthead: 30 December 2023 - 01:38 AM

[Mentalist]

Also, prior to the strikes on Bilhorod and Bryans'k, the orcs launched a massive missile and drone wave last night - over 150 projectiles launched, multiple strikes across the country, and at least 30 confirmed killed civilians.

Yet to be seen if this is the opening salvo of the winter season, or a one-off.

Black Sea Fleet actually admits the Novocherkassk strike killed 74, with another 20-odd people WIA. So that's basically the entire crew accounted for.

[Werthead]

That was the largest Ukrainian (?) strike on a Russian city, with more than 70 drones and missiles fired at targets in and around Belgorod. Ukraine has claimed it was targeting military sites, the Russians are claiming civilian targets were hit. However, there's also claims that many of the munitions said to have been used could not have hit targets at that range, and some Russian S-300 air defence missiles apparently missed their targets and came down on the city (some alleged videos showing missiles going straight up, hitting nothing and coming down again). There are also some claims of a false flag attack, as one hotel was hit which apparently is used by western and other journalists which Ukraine had been informed about. A lot of confusion going on there, especially as Belgorod is not hugely strategically vital by itself.

What is bizarre is an apparently pre-prepared press release in which they confusingly called "Belgorod" "Belgrade."