Jump to content

Ukraine 21: On the Attack with a Giant Phallic Spear


DireWolfSpirit

Recommended Posts

Don't generally do Politico, but here is this:

Fiona Hill: ‘Elon Musk Is Transmitting a Message for Putin’
Eight months into Russia’s war against Ukraine, POLITICO talks to the Russia analyst about whether Putin’s aims are evolving and what it would take to end the war.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/17/fiona-hill-putin-war-00061894

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great thread on the actual actions that Belarus is taking and why it is basically not remotely a threat to Ukraine. The part about how Belarus is communicating in English and Spanish is especially interesting to me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bluff still has strategic military importance, because even when Ukraine is 99.99% certain it's a bluff, it still affects its strategic disposition of resources.

Russia has a major advantage in this war - it doesn't have to worry about defending against a potential Ukrainian land attack on Russian and Belarusian territory, and doesn't need to keep any defensive forces there. On the other hand, Ukraine does need to worry about (or at least take into account the possibility of) an attack from Belarus or currently inactive parts of the border with Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another logistics thread from Trent Telenko, where he posits that the lack of roller bearings for railroad cassettes could eventually lead to a Russian economic collapse, where Russian food and energy supplies suddenly disappear from the world markets.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Great thread on the actual actions that Belarus is taking and why it is basically not remotely a threat to Ukraine...

Kalnestk Oblast -- hahaha, nah; RUS-BLR combat power in the north is certainly a threat; otherwise, the bridges in the north would not have been attacked, and UKR combat power would have been relocated elsewhere to assist in preparing for the liberation of occupied territories. And if / when RUS-BLR achieves adequate combat power, these forces could move beyond posturing into direct-support action.

The Russian intent is to ensure as much Ukrainian combat power in the north to facilitate the Russian consolidation of the south, thus making its annexations a more concrete reality regardless of international recognition (à la Israel in the West Bank). The vulnerability is Russian conventional military incompetence / obsolescence, which Vladimir is trying to resolve through other means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attacking along the northern axis would be improbably difficult, especially with the weather worsening. That whole border area is effectively what used to be called the Pripyet Marshes and single-handedly caused entire military campaigns to  unravel in World War I. Modern vehicles and technology haven't helped much. In the February invasion, Russia tried to stay as much on the east side of the marshes as possible and invade via Chornobyl where there are some half-decent roads, but that whole region has been fortified to hell and back by now.

That entire flank is also impossible to reinforce because there are no Russian railheads leading across the border, which forced the Russians to advance without resupply and rely on their "super convoys." We all know how that went. It would be even worse now.

The troops there are to pin down some Ukrainian forces, but I've seen some reports that Ukraine is using mustering grounds west of Kyiv for their troops to R&R away from the main front but also serve as a staging area for a counter-offensive to the northern border if required. So any attack from that direction would be met by battle-hardened veterans from the front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that Russia/Belarus massing some forces on the North serves a function in keeping some Ukrainian troops and equipment away from the fighting.  But if they were to launch another invasion there, it would be on extremely unfavorable ground (defensible terrain, poor logistics network for Russia, no meaningful objectives in the immediate vicinity).  And it really calls into question, why there?  They aren't going to achieve surprise, because Ukraine has troops stationed nearby and are watching for any buildup with satellites and spies.  What would an attack in the North realistically achieve?  Take Kyiv?  Don't be ridiculous, the best of the Russian army failed back in February, a bunch of untrained conscripts aren't going to pull it off.  Cut off supplies from the west?  They'd have to achieve a massive breakthrough and then hold it with bad supply lines.  Totally unrealistic. 

No, the Russian troops are going to Belarus to do two things.  Pin some Ukrainian forces in the north and to train recruits.  Russian training capacity is completely overwhelmed after mass mobilization, and so they're utilizing what training capacity Belarus has as well.  Unlike committing ground troops, I'm sure Lukashenko is perfectly fine with lending out some drill sergeants and instructors to yell at middle aged Russian men. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Attacking along the northern axis would be improbably difficult, especially with the weather worsening...

Werthead -- right, and I'm confident Vladimir knows this, which explains the composition of Russian combat power there. He doesn't have to attack in force from the north (again) to achieve his intent, which is why it's so useful. And if Ukraine calls the threat a bluff, Vladimir only needs to conduct an attack or two to remind Volodymyr to maintain his combat power in the north.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

Kalnestk Oblast -- hahaha, nah; RUS-BLR combat power in the north is certainly a threat; otherwise, the bridges in the north would not have been attacked, and UKR combat power would have been relocated elsewhere to assist in preparing for the liberation of occupied territories. And if / when RUS-BLR achieves adequate combat power, these forces could move beyond posturing into direct-support action.

The Russian intent is to ensure as much Ukrainian combat power in the north to facilitate the Russian consolidation of the south, thus making its annexations a more concrete reality regardless of international recognition (à la Israel in the West Bank). The vulnerability is Russian conventional military incompetence / obsolescence, which Vladimir is trying to resolve through other means.

I don't think that's accurate, especially given the thread I linked to. The troops being sent to Belarus are nowhere near the front lines, they're not equipped with any kind of vehicle or fire support, the ways to get from the north front are essentially blocked (as both the thread and @Werthead pointed out), and there are no other logistical signs of actual invasion. Obviously taking out the bridges was part of that - but now that they're gone they are not nearly the threat they were. 

Ukraine isn't taking it as a credible threat. They're not repositioning any of their forces. They're not changing any logistics. And if for some reason Belarus forces becomes actually credible - something that would take several months to do and would be very, very visible - Ukraine can reposition forces very quickly if needed given their transportation abilities in-country. 

I think the read on this is that Belarus is doing their standard appeasement dance with Putin - do something that looks vaguely like help but commits nothing to an actual war and barely does anything of note, but is at least really noisy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Belarus actually launches an attack, would the US invoke the Budapest Memorandum and launch some air strikes against Belarus, daring Putin to defend his shitty ally? Objectively that would be hypocritical, but this is the game where everyone cheats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

I think the read on this is that Belarus is doing their standard appeasement dance with Putin - do something that looks vaguely like help but commits nothing to an actual war and barely does anything of note, but is at least really noisy. 

This is something Lukashenko is very, very good at. For all his buffoon-ish image and way of acting, Lukashenko has been quite shrewd in how he's handled and appeased Putin and it's something he's done for a long time (many years more than Putin himself has been in power). He may reach the end of his rope and be forced into a situation of doing something to imperil his position in Belarus to help Putin, but it looks like he's not quite there yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Ukraine isn't taking it as a credible threat. They're not repositioning any of their forces. They're not changing any logistics...

Kalnestk Oblast -- sure it is, which explains why UKR hasn't relocated their already stretched combat power in the north elsewhere (while also using the area vic Kiev as a ready counter-reaction force) despite taking out the bridges. UKR actions and conditions contradict your opinion!

If attack from the north isn't a "credible" threat, then UKR should be able to mass combat power against the RUS on occupied / annexed territory, which is an active threat (not to mention a gross violation of UKR integrity). Yet, it won't take that risk, and for good reason; which Vladimir is exploiting by way of consolidation in the south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

Kalnestk Oblast -- sure it is, which explains why UKR hasn't relocated their already stretched combat power in the north elsewhere (while also using the area vic Kiev as a ready counter-reaction force) despite taking out the bridges. UKR actions and conditions contradict your opinion!

If attack from the north isn't a "credible" threat, then UKR should be able to mass combat power against the RUS on occupied / annexed territory, which is an active threat (not to mention a gross violation of UKR integrity). Yet, it won't take that risk, and for good reason; which Vladimir is exploiting by way of consolidation in the south.

Kyiv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Week -- don't worry, my use of the spelling doesn't mean I'm a RUS apologist; I'd be satisfied to see the country permanently removed as a competitor to the US; for the greater glory of US regional / global dominance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there have to be significant consequences for Iran in supplying these missiles and drones and these need to be signaled to them now so they desist. I would even threaten military intervention if they persist (assuming broad UN approval, military action should never be taken unilaterally). The Iranian regime needs to be changed far, far more than Saddam did at the time (which I was strongly against). The Russian tactics at the moment are abhorrent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Makk said:

I think there have to be significant consequences for Iran in supplying these missiles and drones and these need to be signaled to them now so they desist. I would even threaten military intervention if they persist (assuming broad UN approval, military action should never be taken unilaterally). The Iranian regime needs to be changed far, far more than Saddam did at the time (which I was strongly against). The Russian tactics at the moment are abhorrent.

The United States believes they are violating several sanctions and are taking action against them legally, which sounds a bit toothless, but with Iran rather desperate to reinstate the nuclear deal, they do have some leverage at the moment. There's also some debate about how many of these drones Iran can afford to sell when they have problems at home.

The UN Security Council will never approve military action against Iran, Russia will veto it immediately.

The Iranian regime is also facing an existing large problem at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

The United States believes they are violating several sanctions and are taking action against them legally, which sounds a bit toothless, but with Iran rather desperate to reinstate the nuclear deal, they do have some leverage at the moment. There's also some debate about how many of these drones Iran can afford to sell when they have problems at home.

The UN Security Council will never approve military action against Iran, Russia will veto it immediately.

The Iranian regime is also facing an existing large problem at home.

I don't believe it needs UN security approval, just general broad support. And I would hope that the threat alone forces them to stop. Along with whatever personal war crime charges can be made against individuals in the regime.

Iran are supplying weapons to a terrorist nation, and everyday those weapons are being used to kill civilians and destroy civilian infrastructure. They should not be allowed to get away with this. It would also send a message to Lukashenko.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Makk said:

I don't believe it needs UN security approval, just general broad support. And I would hope that the threat alone forces them to stop. Along with whatever personal war crime charges can be made against individuals in the regime.

Iran are supplying weapons to a terrorist nation, and everyday those weapons are being used to kill civilians and destroy civilian infrastructure. They should not be allowed to get away with this. It would also send a message to Lukashenko.

I think the prospects are slim. The US opening hostilities against Iran, a country much bigger and more populous than Iraq, with much less preparation, is a bad move militarily. It might also spark a much wider Middle Eastern conflagration if Israel and Saudi Arabia decided to take advantage of the situation as well, bombing Iran's suspect nuclear facilities etc. You might also draw Russia and Turkey into the mix in Syria.

Also, Iran is on a knife edge at the moment with the internal protests and dissatisfaction with the regime. Start bombing Iran and any prospect of those protests becoming more successful goes out the window.

It's also unclear how much of a supply chain Iran can keep up for these drones. Russia has apparently ordered 2,000 but only seems to have used less than 100, and Iran isn't believe to have had anything remotely like 2,000 in storage, so they're going to be dribbling them out to Russia as and when they are built.

Also, the drones are not doing a huge amount of militarily effective damage. At the moment it's like the Blitz, if the Luftwaffe dropped 50 bombs every three weeks instead of the tens of thousands they managed. And that's not counting their effectiveness versus being shot down (the Ukrainians are claiming a ~60% interception rate, although I've seen some suggestions it might be closer to 40-45%, but still not bad). Risking a second major regional conflict whilst the first one is still going on is not a great idea whilst the impact is not severe.

You also have the optics of the US bombing Iran for supplying weapons to Russia, which might open the argument that Russia can bomb the logistics hubs in Poland or the various weapons factories in Europe and the US to stop them supplying weapons to Ukraine. The distinction of use in self-defence against military targets versus buying weapons to deliberately target civilians is there and is important, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I think the prospects are slim. The US opening hostilities against Iran, a country much bigger and more populous than Iraq, with much less preparation, is a bad move militarily. It might also spark a much wider Middle Eastern conflagration if Israel and Saudi Arabia decided to take advantage of the situation as well, bombing Iran's suspect nuclear facilities etc. You might also draw Russia and Turkey into the mix in Syria.

Also, Iran is on a knife edge at the moment with the internal protests and dissatisfaction with the regime. Start bombing Iran and any prospect of those protests becoming more successful goes out the window.

It's also unclear how much of a supply chain Iran can keep up for these drones. Russia has apparently ordered 2,000 but only seems to have used less than 100, and Iran isn't believe to have had anything remotely like 2,000 in storage, so they're going to be dribbling them out to Russia as and when they are built.

Also, the drones are not doing a huge amount of militarily effective damage. At the moment it's like the Blitz, if the Luftwaffe dropped 50 bombs every three weeks instead of the tens of thousands they managed. And that's not counting their effectiveness versus being shot down (the Ukrainians are claiming a ~60% interception rate, although I've seen some suggestions it might be closer to 40-45%, but still not bad). Risking a second major regional conflict whilst the first one is still going on is not a great idea whilst the impact is not severe.

You also have the optics of the US bombing Iran for supplying weapons to Russia, which might open the argument that Russia can bomb the logistics hubs in Poland or the various weapons factories in Europe and the US to stop them supplying weapons to Ukraine. The distinction of use in self-defence against military targets versus buying weapons to deliberately target civilians is there and is important, though.

Yes, V1's andV2's were unpleasant, but they made no difference to the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...