Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 09-22-2023

If Biden told Zelensky they're sending them, then they're sending them. That this was leaked like this rather than publicly announced as a part of Zelensky's visit could be a pressure campaign to make sure it happens or perhaps could just be a sign of Biden's reticence to appear escalatory.

Very happy to see.

Other big development recently has been Ukraine's breach of the Russian main defensive line, now being exploited with armor to some degree for the first time visibly.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukrainian-armored-vehicles-breach-russian-defensive-line-in-southeast-bcd472d4?st=f947guh5iya8qba&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1704727137180164356?s=20[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 09-22-2023

(09-22-2023, 08:11 AM)Treefence Wrote:  Here we go again, like I've said before, I'll believe it when I see it.  I think this is more likely an internal disagreement about approval, and those who want to supply the weapons trying to put more pressure on Biden.  [url=https://x.com/NBCNews/status/1705234960037138647?s=20]

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1705234960037138647?s=20

Totally agree. Like you, I'll believe it when I see it. I also expect that the administration will in advance of doing the deed put in place a public relations campaign to explain why we are doing something Biden explicitly said in so many words we would not do. When we see signs of this being done, ATACMS becomes a possibility. Until then, IMO, it can't happen.

This concern isn't just political in the US. Biden said what he said in order to reassure Russia that the US would not support Ukraine attacking Russia. Whether this definitive explicit statement was advisable is another subject. It was made, and the Russians could regard violating it as destabilizing the "agreement" between NATO and Russia limiting the scope of this war. They need to know that isn't the case, or else they may vastly overreact. This needs to be addressed.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 09-22-2023

(09-22-2023, 09:26 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Other big development recently has been Ukraine's breach of the Russian main defensive line, now being exploited with armor to some degree for the first time visibly.

And of course, today's hit on Navy HQ in Sevastopol with a Storm Shadow.

How well do ATACMS work in the presence of GPS jamming?  If the limited supply can take out the Kerch bridge, that would be significant.  If they can cause Russia to move supply depots back into Russia, that would be good.

Btw, I wanted to see what could be seen on Google Maps in the area of that penetration (47.4328201,35.939303) Unfortunately, Google Maps imagery of that area is from Oct. 2020 despite the 2023 copyright (date of imagery is available in Google Earth)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 09-22-2023

Mote from WSJ. I think it's gonna happen.

https://www.wsj.com/world/biden-told-zelensky-u-s-is-willing-to-provide-long-range-atacms-missiles-3d125ab3

Quote:WASHINGTON—President Biden has told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he is willing to provide advanced long-range, surface-to-surface missiles to help Kyiv with its counteroffensive, U.S. officials say. 

Officials said that a small number of missiles from the U.S. Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, will be sent in coming weeks and more could be provided later.

Their importance for Kyiv has grown since supplies of long-range cruise missiles from the British and French have begun to dwindle. 

The U.S. provision of ATACMS could also encourage Germany to provide its Taurus long-range cruise missile. Berlin has indicated that it prefers to move with Washington in providing new types of military aid.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 09-22-2023

Unconfirmed at this point, but it's possible the successful attack on the Black Sea Fleet headquarters in Sevastopol took out the its commander.  

[tweet]=https://x.com/KilledInUkraine/status/1705267675117556054?s=20]https://twitter.com/KilledInUkraine/status/1705267675117556054?s=20[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 09-22-2023

Since they're only getting a few, they will have to be very high priority targets. If they are getting unitary warhead versions, then Kerch Bridge would definitely be up there on the list, unless Biden puts an explicit veto on that as a provision of transferring the missiles.

If they are getting bomblet versions, then Crimean airbases will become very bad places to be. Same for any static or mobile air defense systems. Would definitely not want to be an S-3/400 operator now.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 09-22-2023

Storm Shadow says hello!

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1705278251814277451?s=20[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 09-22-2023

(09-22-2023, 10:21 AM)Treefence Wrote:  Unconfirmed at this point, but it's possible the successful attack on the Black Sea Fleet headquarters in Sevastopol took out the its commander. 

Each side minimizes reports of their losses, but earliest reports had no injuries, then 1 dead which was changed to 1 missing.  Ukraine source indicated they wished for a larger hole in the building. 
But, if you know where the commander's office is, and you can hit that exact spot, you don't need much of an entry wound to the building...

I was wondering why there wasn't a second action against naval forces timed to start with the attack on the HQ..  If the chain of command is in flux or using secondary comms channels, the response by Russia might be delayed.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 09-22-2023

The first video in dabigv's post shows a large missing chunk in the west wing of that building.  In the 2nd video of the additional missile hit, it appears there is no west wing of the building, as seen in this 2019 photo (from that video's angle).  The video in this article shows the front of the building and the east wing, with smoke presumably coming from the west wing.  I guess the Ukrainian official who spoke of a small hole was using an understatement for effect.

I was wondering about the reactions of the people in that 2nd video to a missile exploding 0.3 miles away.

I missed that at first.  I presumed the 2nd video was shortly after a 2nd missile hit and was recording a dark plume (center of view) probably from the east wing (and something comes falling down the front of the building).  But then I noticed that at 2 seconds into the video, there is another bunch of smoke appearing in front of the building from what I presume is either a missile strike or a secondary explosion.  The 3 adults react to something and the little girl drops to her knees.

So there may have been (at least) 3 strikes.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 09-22-2023

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1705347391111524654?s=20[/tweet]

And a very good, interesting recent interview with Budanov.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/exclusive-interview-with-ukraines-spy-boss-from-his-dc-hotel-room

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 09-22-2023

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/09/22/atacms-ukraine-cluster-munitions/

Quote:The Biden administration plans to provide Ukraine with a version of ATACMS long-range missiles armed with cluster bomblets rather than a single warhead, according to several people familiar with the ongoing deliberations.

...

Cluster-armed ATACMS are no longer considered a front-line U.S. weapon. From an estimated original production of 2,500, some from the early 1990s, many were later refitted with unitary warheads, according to a fiscal year 2018 Defense Department publication. Consideration of the cluster warhead ATACMS was first reported by Reuters.

As of the end of August, the Army had 1,486 ATACMS in its arsenal, 1,122 with unitary warheads and 364 armed with cluster munitions, according to information it provided to lawmakers.

Sounds like old Block I (950 bomblets, inertial guidance, no GPS, 100 mi range, though probably most have been upgraded to newer unitary warhead designs) and Block IA (300 bomblets, inertial and GPS guidance, 190mi range, probably more likely to still be around for transfer) are what are being discussed. These will not be useful for taking out Kerch bridge but would be very effective at blowing up air defenses and airbases.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 09-22-2023

Decapitation strike aimed at Russian southern command...the amount of intelligence gathering that went into confirming a meeting of senior staff must have been intense.  (I assume Russian staff officers figured out pretty quickly after Year One that Ukraine liked to pick off generals.)  Well done.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 09-22-2023

(09-22-2023, 06:46 PM)fullmetal Wrote:  Decapitation strike aimed at Russian southern command...the amount of intelligence gathering that went into confirming a meeting of senior staff must have been intense.  (I assume Russian staff officers figured out pretty quickly after Year One that Ukraine liked to pick off generals.)  Well done.

We will never know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't a lot of networks of spies in Crimea.  A lot of military forces in that area were originally Ukrainian, then many were pressured into witching sides back in 2014.  While I'm sure most of them are true traitors, I'm guessing Ukraine has communication networks with many in that area.  It was somewhat rumored that someone leaked this information due to not being paid, but that seems like more of a convenient lie.  Hopefully we know more soon, as to how many high level officers were killed, but I personally hope some of those former Ukrainian admiral turncoats were among the rubble...

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 09-22-2023

(09-22-2023, 05:10 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/09/22/atacms-ukraine-cluster-munitions/

Quote:The Biden administration plans to provide Ukraine with a version of ATACMS long-range missiles armed with cluster bomblets rather than a single warhead, according to several people familiar with the ongoing deliberations.
...

Cluster-armed ATACMS are no longer considered a front-line U.S. weapon. From an estimated original production of 2,500, some from the early 1990s, many were later refitted with unitary warheads, according to a fiscal year 2018 Defense Department publication. Consideration of the cluster warhead ATACMS was first reported by Reuters.

As of the end of August, the Army had 1,486 ATACMS in its arsenal, 1,122 with unitary warheads and 364 armed with cluster munitions, according to information it provided to lawmakers.

Sounds like old Block I (950 bomblets, inertial guidance, no GPS, 100 mi range, though probably most have been upgraded to newer unitary warhead designs) and Block IA (300 bomblets, inertial and GPS guidance, 190mi range, probably more likely to still be around for transfer) are what are being discussed. These will not be useful for taking out Kerch bridge but would be very effective at blowing up air defenses and airbases.

This is probably correct. The US deprecated cluster munitions so completely that we re-manufactured almost all of them to unitary warheads. This was not a good idea, and I strongly suspect the Army is now loath to give away the few we have.  Obviously they will do so if ordered, but not happily.

The ATACMS has been plagued by infighting between the Air Force and the Army about what weapons are best suited to the "deep strike" mission. This has been compounded by the Army dithering on the extended range precision strike missile. We didn't buy many more of the older ATACMS because we wanted the "new" extended range ones, but exactly what the "new" ones are has been a moving target. In large measure, it still is.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 09-23-2023

(09-22-2023, 09:44 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(09-22-2023, 08:11 AM)Treefence Wrote:  Here we go again, like I've said before, I'll believe it when I see it.  I think this is more likely an internal disagreement about approval, and those who want to supply the weapons trying to put more pressure on Biden.  [url=https://x.com/NBCNews/status/1705234960037138647?s=20]

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1705234960037138647?s=20

Totally agree. Like you, I'll believe it when I see it. I also expect that the administration will in advance of doing the deed put in place a public relations campaign to explain why we are doing something Biden explicitly said in so many words we would not do. When we see signs of this being done, ATACMS becomes a possibility. Until then, IMO, it can't happen.

This concern isn't just political in the US. Biden said what he said in order to reassure Russia that the US would not support Ukraine attacking Russia. Whether this definitive explicit statement was advisable is another subject. It was made, and the Russians could regard violating it as destabilizing the "agreement" between NATO and Russia limiting the scope of this war. They need to know that isn't the case, or else they may vastly overreact. This needs to be addressed.

I don't know if you saw it, but a couple weeks ago Sec State said the U.S. is not going to put any restriction on what Ukraine does with the weapons the U.S. provides. He says they will say we "prefer they not be used on Russian territory, but it's their decision how to use them as they see fit."

This is exactly how it should be. I can damn well guarantee that if the U.S. were in a position similar to Ukraine, it would use the weapons it got how it wanted as well. Anyone would.  

Russia needs to experience every consequence possible for its invasion of Ukraine and the destruction it has wrought. It's not OK to do what it has done, and that sentiment needs to be delivered by every country on the planet against it in as explicit and unambiguously as possible. If that means ATACMS blow up something in Moscow, so be it. Make Russia understand: Invade and continue hurting Ukraine, watch Ukraine get weapons to hit Crimea and inside Russia. Attack a NATO country, prepare to have your entire military destroyed. Launch a nuclear attack, we'll see you in hell.

The U.S. being afraid of Russia "retaliating" for ATACMS used on Russian territory tells Russia its mainland is relatively safe if it attacks Ukraine. You want to end the war faster, wash this idea out of their head, and tell them you want the war to end more than you are afraid of escalation, by sending the weapons that can be used on Russian land. The fact the U.S. sends such weapons to Ukraine will send a "bring it on" message to Russia that it needs to hear.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 09-23-2023

(09-23-2023, 05:49 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  The U.S. being afraid of Russia "retaliating" for ATACMS used on Russian territory tells Russia its mainland is relatively safe if it attacks Ukraine. You want to end the war faster, wash this idea out of their head, and tell them you want the war to end more than you are afraid of escalation, by sending the weapons that can be used on Russian land. The fact the U.S. sends such weapons to Ukraine will send a "bring it on" message to Russia that it needs to hear.

OF, I have to disagree with you here. First of all, the US isn't (or wasn't) holding back ATACMS because we feared "retaliation". We have sent weapons to Ukraine that are doing plenty of damage to the Russian military. They are already "mad" at us. We have been holding back ATACMS because Biden explicitly said we would not give it to Ukraine. We feared that turning around and doing so would make us appear untrustworthy to both friends (who DO fear retaliation with good reason) and foe (Russia who would regard our strategic restraint as no longer reliable).

It is ALWAYS a bad idea to use a weapons system for "messaging". The usage of a weapons system has to be primarily based on it's military effect, not on how you expect the enemy to interpret it's use. The Germans in WW II firmly believed the British population would fold up in the face of the "Blitz". It didn't, it's resolve hardened. The British thought the German populace couldn't stand up to their night bombing campaign. It stood up just fine to the very end of the war. The US was sure the North Vietnamese government would get the "bring it on" message and end the war. The opposite happened. While it is necessary to evaluate and be aware of the possible "social and psychological" aspects of a given weapons system, deploying it primarily for these reasons is always a fools errand. Nobody has so far been successful in accurately predicting how the government and the people will react to the use of a given weapon. Even the nuclear bombing of Japan is still a matter of controversy regarding its role in Japan surrendering.

ATACMS is "good" only for what military effects it can have. Firing a few into Russian territory is generally pointless. We don't have enough such missiles to bring Russia to it's knees even if we gave Ukraine all we have (which we certainly do not intend to do). Ukraine has endured continuous missile attacks on a far greater scale than anything Ukraine can come even close to sending back towards Russia, yet they haven't folded. Russia probably won't either, and certainly not from ATACMS usage. However, quite a few of our European allies might, because many of them are very concerned about Russian retaliation against them (instead of us, because Russia isn't "afraid" of them). Obviously we know there are political forces at work in these NATO countries that are against helping Ukraine. There is a very real "messaging" issue there too. 

Ukraine should get ATACMS, but only in so far as they have significant military targets whose destruction will contribute to forcing the Russian military to retreat right out of Ukraine. If Russia gives up before they are compelled to, fine, but we (and Ukraine) can't make decisions on that basis. If we do, we risk doing things that make no military sense, and that just helps the Russians.

This does bring up the "How does this end?" question, which realistically is a very tough one. We (and Ukraine) are counting on Russia giving up if they are driven out of all Ukrainian territory including Crimea. While the belief that the Russians would give up at that point is in many ways rational, we can't count on it. Hopefully the US military is making plans to equip Ukraine in such a way it can defeat the Russian missile attacks that might continue indefinitely. That kind of a "frozen conflict" is unfortunately possible. For some reason I have no confidence our "brain trust" is actually considering this scenario and our response to it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 09-23-2023

With no sanctions and western support, it wouldn't surprise me to see Ukrainian domestic long range strike production exceed that of the Russias within a few years. 

For now Ukraine is (appropriately) focusing their long range strikes on military targets. In a frozen conflict I expect that focus would shift to Russias economy. Oil production, shipping, etc. To bring an end to the war, in addition to securing its borders, Ukraine needs to show it can make a frozen conflict more expensive for Russia then vice versa.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Maple Leaf - 09-25-2023

Below is a quote from the following article in the Washington Post.  Question, is the US considering providing helicopters to Ukraine?

Watch Ukraine’s helicopters fire rocket salvos — from treetop level - The Washington Post

Yevhen, a 33-year-old pilot who commanded the lead aircraft for the day, offered some potential solutions to the glaring shortfalls between Russian and Ukrainian aircraft. Helicopters like the U.S.-made Apache are too complicated, he said, but the United States could provide mothballed Cobra gunships, which were retired in 2020. The ability to launch guided missiles would help change the battlefield dynamic, Yevhen said.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 09-25-2023

(09-25-2023, 09:38 AM)Maple Leaf Wrote:  Question, is the US considering providing helicopters to Ukraine?

I assume it's been considered.  The same obstacles to F-16 deployment apply: logistics (parts, compatibility, fuel?), training ramp, control layout, training logistics, etc.  Whereas a couple of NATO allies have F-16s to share (NED, DEN, TUR but not really), I don't think anyone in NATO is using the Cobra.  Japan, Israel, and the US have retired their Cobras due to cost and comparative disadvantages to UAVs (e.g. vulnerability to MANPADS).  If there's a case for significant strategic benefit within a reasonable timeframe, someone in the Pentagon is probably working on it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 09-25-2023

(09-25-2023, 12:44 PM)fullmetal Wrote:   If there's a case for significant strategic benefit within a reasonable timeframe, someone in the Pentagon is probably working on it.

I wish I shared your optimism. The Pentagon hasn't exactly exerted much leadership in what should be done. Political considerations may play a role in that, but also it isn't something that we really have a history of doing. What department is supposed to do this?

---