Ukraine 12: When is this an existential threat?

[Maithanet]

I think that most/all of Russia's army becoming combat ineffective in the next three weeks is indeed extremely optimistic.

But I do agree that the Kremlin seems to be promising/hyping a major victory by May 9.  If that doesn't happen, then pressure will begin to mount as the "just a few months" narrative begins to falls apart.  How Putin reacts to that pressure is one of the biggest unknowns.

[Werthead]

35 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Assume the Ukraine somehow scores a major across the board battlefield victory or several such - to the point where 90%+ of the Russian force is decimated and they are basically forced to abandon all Ukrainian territory within say, the next three weeks or so. Might be a stretch, but plausible. 

Where does that leave Putin? Keep in mind that Putin is faced with total, undeniable failure of HIS pet project. Way I see it, that will make him look weak in front of all of his subordinates. At that point he either -

1 - goes the 'weapons of mass destruction route' (and we'd best hope somebody sane countermands those orders)

2 - Initiates a truly massive internal purge 

3 - tries to ride it out with some sort of diplomatic solution

Options 1 & 2 have a high possibility of a fatal backlash for Putin. 3 means a long rough ride that would keep him putting out brushfires on the home front, because otherwise there is a damn good chance the whole country breaks apart.

It's a difficult one.

I think 1) has a number of major problems for Russia, including NATO misinterpreting a missile launch as a first strike and they respond with a strike on Russia, which obviously Russia does not want. Russia dropping a single tactical nuke as a warning I think would be ignored by Ukraine. Russia successfully dropping larger weapons on Ukrainian soil incurs a significant risk of blowback, literally radioactive fallout blowing into Belarus (likely not a major concern for Putin), Poland/Romania (which could trigger Article 5) or Russia itself (which really would get Putin in trouble). Also, the second you launch a nuclear weapon for the first time in anger since 1945, the response from everyone - including allies like China - becomes dramatically unpredictable. Russia and Putin both risk losing control of the situation and one certainty about Russia and Putin is that they love being in control.

2) is already underway. The FSB and other intelligence and security agencies are the ones most likely to turn on Putin and have the ability and manpower to overthrow him. The army is very much a subordinate, broken thing in its power in the Kremlin. The FSB has already been gutted of its most promising and intelligent officers, as has the army. I'm not sure what more purging can be done that hasn't been done so far. However, blaming internal traitors for the operation not achieving all its objectives is certainly a possibility.

3) is very clearly why the negotiations are still going on. They are to provide the framework for a possible climbdown which Putin can present in whatever way he wants, including selling a peace deal as a Ukrainian surrender to Russia's wishes or whatever. I think this as an option remains just about viable, but it's taken a hell of a beating in the last few weeks. I think we really need to see Turkey or even China or someone really pushing the negotiations again because they've been allowed to go cold.

Russia collapsing (the Kamil Galeev) model is possible but it feels unlikely in the short term, and only going to become likely if the country receives a really massive seismic shock to its sanctions (Germany cutting off oil altogether) which makes the regional governors start taking a protectionist view of each republic more quickly.

Based on Putin's prior behaviour, I think a declared victory (even a VINO) followed by a peace treaty he sells as a triumph of Russian diplomacy would be the most likely outcome. However, Putin's attitude and contempt for Ukraine is quite different from his more philosophical attitude towards Georgia and Syria. He may also be looking at his legacy and deciding he doesn't have the years left to take a longer-term view. That may prevent him from following the most rational course of action. If he is unable to declare a convincing victory (feigned or real) and decides escalation to WMDs is too dangerous to him personally (because he doesn't care about anyone else), then the war grinding on in a frozen conflict that saps Russia's strength until Putin leave office becomes the default. And who knows what comes after that.

[Maithanet]

In today's US intelligence briefing they explicitly said that the Moskva was still operational and (very slowly) making its way to Sevastopol.  That appears to have been wrong.  Russia admits the Moskva has sunk.

 

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Russia collapsing (the Kamil Galeev) model is possible but it feels unlikely in the short term, and only going to become likely if the country receives a really massive seismic shock to its sanctions (Germany cutting off oil altogether) which makes the regional governors start taking a protectionist view of each republic more quickly.

Based on Putin's prior behaviour, I think a declared victory (even a VINO) followed by a peace treaty he sells as a triumph of Russian diplomacy would be the most likely outcome. However, Putin's attitude and contempt for Ukraine is quite different from his more philosophical attitude towards Georgia and Syria. That may prevent him from following the most rational course of action. If he is unable to declare a convincing victory (feigned or real) and decides escalation to WMDs is too dangerous to him personally, then the war grinding on in a frozen conflict that saps Russia's strength until Putin leave office becomes the default.

I am taking Galeev with more and more salt, as it seems like his articles are basically "here's why this new development shows that Russian collapse is imminent".  I'm skeptical.  Russia's military looks incompetent, but its security forces and propaganda machine are still strong, and those are what Putin will rely on to remain in power. 

I go back and forth on whether this war could settle into a low level stalemate.  While I think that Russia might prefer that to negotiating a peace treaty, I am not certain that Ukraine will allow that.  If Russia abandons the offensive, I think they have to get a peace treaty.  Just sitting back against a smaller but better trained and more motivated foe is a recipe for a death by 1,000 cuts. 

[JGP]

 

[Werthead]

19 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I am taking Galeev with more and more salt, as it seems like his articles are basically "here's why this new development shows that Russian collapse is imminent".  I'm skeptical.  Russia's military looks incompetent, but its security forces and propaganda machine are still strong, and those are what Putin will rely on to remain in power. 

I go back and forth on whether this war could settle into a low level stalemate.  While I think that Russia might prefer that to negotiating a peace treaty, I am not certain that Ukraine will allow that.  If Russia abandons the offensive, I think they have to get a peace treaty.  Just sitting back against a smaller but better trained and more motivated foe is a recipe for a death by 1,000 cuts. 

Galeev has excellent knowledge of Russian history and politics (both historical and more recent) so his ideas are worth looking at, but knowing the past doesn't necessarily mean you'll get predicting the future right. I think his analysis of Russia's inherent structural problems (such as trying to hold onto such an absolutely vast amount of territory when the overwhelming bulk of the population is located in a relatively small part of it) is very good, but Russia has been successfully overcoming that problem for 300+ years.

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Russia has been successfully overcoming that problem for 300+ years.

Right.  And I just feel like I'm hearing the same story about impending Russian collapse in every one of his posts.  That is definitely a prediction, and I prefer my experts to be much more circumspect about that kind of thing. 

[lacuna]

How will the morale of Russian troops be affected by hearing that victory will be declared on May 9, no matter what? I'd assume most of them really, really won't want to stick their necks out then, with just 3 weeks to go.

[Ran]

The Russian defense ministry has now admitted that the Moskva has sunk, per the BBC. An astonishing coup for Ukraine. Strange coincidence that it was the ship told to fuck itself at the outset of the war.

ETA: Apparently Forbes Ukraine estimates that the replacement cost for Moskva would be circa $750 million, based on the price tag placed on the Ukraina -- an uncompleted Slava-class ship rusting away in Ukraine -- back in 1995. Probably more than that, honestly. A huge blow. Is this the single most expensive military asset destroyed in combat since WWII?

[williamjm]

5 hours ago, Toth said:

Also of fucking course pictures like these are already going around: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQTQOBAXsAMO5GZ?format=jpg&name=large

Now is the perfect opportunity for Ukranian fishermen to show that the Ukranian farmers can't take all the glory.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@Werthead

How does this impact suppression of Ukrainian air assets over Odesa and the Black Sea?

[Derfel Cadarn]

30 minutes ago, Ran said:

The Russian defense ministry has now admitted that the Moskva has sunk, per the BBC. An astonishing coup for Ukraine. Strange coincidence that it was the ship told to fuck itself at the outset of the war.

ETA: Apparently Forbes Ukraine estimates that the replacement cost for Moskva would be circa $750 million, based on the price tag placed on the Ukraina -- an uncompleted Slava-class ship rusting away in Ukraine -- back in 1995. Probably more than that, honestly. A huge blow. Is this the single most expensive military asset destroyed in combat since WWII?

Glorious transformation to submarine! 

[Maithanet]

38 minutes ago, Ran said:

Is this the single most expensive military asset destroyed in combat since WWII?

I have heard that it is the largest military loss since WW2.  Although I would think a nuclear submarine like the Kursk might be more expensive?  That wasn't in combat of course.

[a free shadow]

Russia will not collapse teritorially, even if people currently in charge have managed to make an incredible mess of it, Russians as a whole have the mentality to manage it back up.

What is interesting for me is that it took so long to confirm what happened to the ship, suggesting it was too hard to really get eyes on it.

[DaveSumm]

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Assume the Ukraine somehow scores a major across the board battlefield victory or several such - to the point where 90%+ of the Russian force is decimated and they are basically forced to abandon all Ukrainian territory within say, the next three weeks or so. Might be a stretch, but plausible. 

It’s insane that we now consider this plausible compared to when the invasion started. Back then I probably would’ve give the chances of Ukraine retaining 10% of its territory less plausibility than I currently do to it retaining 100%. Make no mistake, Putin has completely fucked this up. I still see much of the media asking ‘what if a NATO country is next?’ … with what army? This shit show? 

[ThinkerX]

I can't really buy into the 'prolonged military stalemate' option for the Russia/Ukraine war.

Precedent being the morass the old USSR got themselves into with their invasion of Afghanistan, which played a significant role in the USSR's collapse. 

First, Russia WILL have increasing numbers of veterans going home and telling tales dramatically at odds with the state propaganda. That goes on long enough, people will discount everything the state media tells them - which is more or less what happened forty years ago.

Second, the sanctions will bite into the parts and supplies needed to keep *everything* running - planes, trains, trucks, computers, all manner of military equipment.  Result is the entire country becomes a giant scrapyard with not much working the way it is supposed to.  Internal logistical nightmare combined with a starving populace. 

As to the collapse - it happened with first the old East Block, then the USSR itself. With the former, there were pundits, politicians, and spy boys on all sides loudly insisting it could not happen - even as it did.

[Ran]

15 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I have heard that it is the largest military loss since WW2.  Although I would think a nuclear submarine like the Kursk might be more expensive?  That wasn't in combat of course.

Can't find a specific estimate for Oscar II-class subs like the Kursk, but its successor submarine was estimated as costing $780 million each, so probably in the ballpark. 

[Rippounet]

All, right, I'll say it: the sinking of the Moskva really worries me. I'm not sure such a success can go unanswered in a war.
I hope it helps pushing the Russians to a cease-fire, but I fear they will want to refuse their humiliation first.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

20 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

All, right, I'll say it: the sinking of the Moskva really worries me. I'm not sure such a success can go unanswered in a war.
I hope it helps pushing the Russians to a cease-fire, but I fear they will want to refuse their humiliation first.

Should the Ukrainians not fight back?

[Derfel Cadarn]

When your ground war is going so shit that your largely navy-less enemy sinks your flagship.

It’s like being so shit at chess that your opponent fucks you up at Battleship as an afterthought.