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 - Goose - 07-08-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/europe-overpromised-artillery-shells-ukraine-140432645.html

Obviously I can't confirm any of these "reports" on either "side" of the issue. However, I do believe the 450-750K number is much, much closer to the truth the 1M+ number referenced. The unfortunate trend in this war has been for the European (and to a degree the US) to vastly overstate both the quantity and the immediacy of what they are doing. The truth later comes out and it is often not good. It has effects.

Ukraine is in a militarily hopeless situation without massive military aid from the west, primarily the US. Without aid they have too few people and too little military-industrial complex to hold off Russia for any length of time. Knowing that, Ukraine will inevitably quit if the aid stops. So far, lots of aid has been delivered. Even more has been promised and not (yet?) delivered. Whether that quantity of aid is adequate to allow a Ukrainian victory is arguable. However, one thing that is absolutely undeniable is that the RATE of aid delivery has been far slower than initially promised and that this delay has considerably attenuated the effect of the aid that has arrived. Politicians make announcements with great fanfare and then almost nothing happens. It seems the announcement (even if it isn't literally "true") is the goal, not the intended kinetic result. This "business as usual" approach to the war in Ukraine among those not actively fighting is definitely in the process of defeating Ukraine. Ukraine has enough problems without this additional burden.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 07-10-2024

(07-08-2024, 11:28 AM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/europe-overpromised-artillery-shells-ukraine-140432645.html

Obviously I can't confirm any of these "reports" on either "side" of the issue. However, I do believe the 450-750K number is much, much closer to the truth the 1M+ number referenced. The unfortunate trend in this war has been for the European (and to a degree the US) to vastly overstate both the quantity and the immediacy of what they are doing. The truth later comes out and it is often not good. It has effects.

Ukraine is in a militarily hopeless situation without massive military aid from the west, primarily the US. Without aid they have too few people and too little military-industrial complex to hold off Russia for any length of time. Knowing that, Ukraine will inevitably quit if the aid stops. So far, lots of aid has been delivered. Even more has been promised and not (yet?) delivered. Whether that quantity of aid is adequate to allow a Ukrainian victory is arguable. However, one thing that is absolutely undeniable is that the RATE of aid delivery has been far slower than initially promised and that this delay has considerably attenuated the effect of the aid that has arrived. Politicians make announcements with great fanfare and then almost nothing happens. It seems the announcement (even if it isn't literally "true") is the goal, not the intended kinetic result. This "business as usual" approach to the war in Ukraine among those not actively fighting is definitely in the process of defeating Ukraine. Ukraine has enough problems without this additional burden.

If this article is accurate, it certainly steps up the value of FPV drones.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2024/07/10/destroying-russian-tanks-is-just-the-start-for-us-ai-drone-autopilot/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 07-10-2024

News coming from NATO summit. F16's en route to Ukraine. Likely operational in the next few weeks though probably in a very limited capacity. Also a lot of air defense systems are en route, mix of Patriot and SAMP/T. Possibly up to 9 systems, not including possible Israeli ones, on the table.

Big elephant in the room remains the November election however. No matter how many Patriot systems Ukraine has, they will need the US to continue to supply interceptors.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/10/joint-statement-on-f-16s-for-ukraine-from-u-s-president-joseph-r-biden-dutch-prime-minister-dick-schoof-and-danish-prime-minister-mette-frederiksen/

https://x.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1810795383171469460

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-10-2024

(07-10-2024, 07:55 AM)GK3 Wrote:  If this article is accurate, it certainly steps up the value of FPV drones.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2024/07/10/destroying-russian-tanks-is-just-the-start-for-us-ai-drone-autopilot/

It is accurate. It is also not really all that "new". The "new" parts are 1) the addition of "AI" allowing a relative novice to describe targets and to some limited extent attack trajectories and 2) delivering these capabilities in a video sensor and electronics package that is small enough and cheap enough to use in vehicles that have a very very limited payload capacity. The US military has been able to do these things for many years, but our drones were (are) larger and can carry a bigger guidance payload. They are much more expensive. They are also programmed by specialists that know how to do it. Open source software is an advantage in Ukraine partly because the US gives nothing away in its use. It is not necessarily the "best". However, it may be. Consider the trajectory of Linux :-).

The Maverick missile had software that could lock on to a "designated" target. It was primitive software and the sensor resolution wasn't great. It works very well. Subsequent platforms do much, much better, as one would expect. The "FPV" video requirement has always been the Achilles Heel of these small attack drones. The video back link can be jammed as (much more easily) can the the command and control uplink. The technology described in the article allows the drone to fly through jamming once the operator designates the target. The enabling assumption is that the "jamming bubble" is small enough the designation by the operator (via FPV) is possible. There is no reason to believe that has to be true. More and better concentrated jamming power defeats that approach. It is already quite possible to launch "jammer" drones that fly a bit higher and blanket an area with RF power. These drones would be recoverable and therefore cost effective. For these reasons the "FPV" feature is inevitably doomed to failure fairly quickly.

The "big deal" here is the software described is in principal capable of allowing a drone to be launched in a "search and destroy" mode where absolutely no up or down link is required. It also doesn't need GPS, as the INS can keep it inside a fuzzy box in enemy territory. Landmark recognition can optionally allow it to "re-calibrate" and do even better. In principle, it carries neither a transmitter nor receiver. You can't jam it no matter how much power you generate. The people launching these drones don't need to know how to fly them or view targets on video. The drones do all that without human aid. There is no inherent reason multiple spectrum cameras can't be used to even further refine the target recognition in the drones. That is the "gold standard" that the Ukrainian war is pushing the world towards. Ukraine isn't there yet, but is getting much closer. Imagine a drone launching platoon saturating an area with a hundred killer drones to "sanitize" an area just before an attack. Even if not all the defenders and their vehicles are eliminated, the fear and chaos will be debilitating.

The above scenario is one reason the US has not gone "all in" on jamming enemy drones. The assumption is that quite soon that will become an irrelevant capability. Lasers that can rapidly kill drones either by damaging their electronics or blinding them is therefore the approach of choice. While AFAIK the US is not heavily pursuing it, anti-drone drones will certainly become a significant requirement. Along with that will be "IFF" capability to prevent various forms of fratricide. This requirement encompasses air to ground, ground to air, and even air to air. It is in many ways a nightmare, but it is happening, like it or not.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 07-10-2024

https://www.wsj.com/world/us-weapons-russia-ukraine-0eed240c?st=iipgz1jfb1l9cl6&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Wall Street Journal Article reiterating much of what I can read here from Goose's excellent analysis.  The Russians are learning countermeasures to Western-supplied technology.

Quote:Western military doctrine has long relied on a belief that precision can defeat mass—meaning that well-targeted strikes can cripple a more numerous enemy, reducing the need for massive expenditure on troops, tanks and artillery.

That proposition, however, had not been tested in a major war until Ukraine. The introduction of Western weapons there showed that what may have worked against Saddam Hussein’s army, the Taliban or Islamic State guerrillas won’t necessarily perform against a modern military like Russia’s or China’s.

“We have probably made some bad assumptions because over the last 20 years we were launching precision weapons against people that could not do anything about it,” said retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe. “Now we are doing it against a peer opponent, and Russia and China do have these capabilities.”

One of the lessons learned in Ukraine is about the continuing importance of old-school unguided artillery shells, the manufacturing of which is only now beginning to pick up in the U.S. and Europe after decades of decline, said Lt. Gen. Esa Pulkkinen, the permanent secretary of Finland’s defense ministry. “They are immune to any type of jamming, and they will go to target regardless of what type of electronic warfare capability there may be,” he said.

Also, interesting comments on how using older equipment that is being phased out works against efforts to upgrade and modernize.

Goose has convinced me that honing in on jamming signals ought to be a no-brainer, and yet...

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 07-11-2024

Ukraine obviously tracking the polls.

https://x.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1811124444573622751

Quote:Scoop: Kyiv wants to convene a second meeting to achieve a fair peace settlement in Ukraine before the US elections in November -- this time with Russia attending, sources told 
@DarynaKrasno
 
@AlbertoNardelli
 and me. 

The push to organize the meeting before the US elections points to a sense of urgency on the part of Ukraine as it faces the prospect of Trump returning to the White House.

Russian gains have been slowed and Ukraine seems on stable footing now but that position relies on continued US support that would certainly dry up in a second Trump term. I'm skeptical that something durable could be agreed in this scenario; Russia would happily lock up gains they've made, but what assurance could Ukraine rely on that the fighting is over, when Russian leaders talk openly about occupying Kiev and destroying NATO.
.....

https://x.com/beverstine/status/1811422827956044247

Quote:The U.S. Air Force early this year announced a plan for a new, air-launched, cheaper munition--the Extended Range Attack Munition.

Now, the service's weapons directorate says it is for Ukraine

https://x.com/John_A_Ridge/status/1811426829561118822

With Storm Shadow/SCALP in shorter supply, the US is looking to develop a replacement type munition.

.....

Russian plans to assassinate the CEO of Rheinmetall were foiled. Russia is at war with NATO, but NATO doesn't seem to want to fully acknowledge and respond like that's the case.

https://x.com/shashj/status/1811420477857927197

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-11-2024

(07-11-2024, 09:06 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Ukraine obviously tracking the polls.

https://x.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1811124444573622751

Quote:Scoop: Kyiv wants to convene a second meeting to achieve a fair peace settlement in Ukraine before the US elections in November -- this time with Russia attending, sources told 
@DarynaKrasno
 
@AlbertoNardelli
 and me. 

The push to organize the meeting before the US elections points to a sense of urgency on the part of Ukraine as it faces the prospect of Trump returning to the White House.

Russian gains have been slowed and Ukraine seems on stable footing now but that position relies on continued US support that would certainly dry up in a second Trump term. I'm skeptical that something durable could be agreed in this scenario; Russia would happily lock up gains they've made, but what assurance could Ukraine rely on that the fighting is over, when Russian leaders talk openly about occupying Kiev and destroying NATO.
.....

I am sure Putin is tracking the polls too. Right now, I strongly suspect his willingness to accept anything less than total unconditional surrender from Ukraine is less than zero. He will at least keep banging away until after the election. I doubt he would even be willing to accept a Czechoslovakia type solution of "much now, the rest later".  The Russian people will eventually find out what this war has cost them and how little benefit it will bring in return. As long as the war goes on, that reckoning is deferred. Stopping in the middle is not in Putin's interest.

Quote:https://x.com/beverstine/status/1811422827956044247

Quote:The U.S. Air Force early this year announced a plan for a new, air-launched, cheaper munition--the Extended Range Attack Munition.

Now, the service's weapons directorate says it is for Ukraine

https://x.com/John_A_Ridge/status/1811426829561118822

With Storm Shadow/SCALP in shorter supply, the US is looking to develop a replacement type munition.

.....

Unfortunately RFIs are a dime for several dozen. Means very little. I know, we answered lots of them over the years :-). Oftentimes it was in response by a legitimate need that the military bureaucracy had no intention of actually satisfying. They needed to "do something", and the RFI was it. Then everybody forgets all about it. Of course, we do need such a development, but we need it now, not 24 months from now.

Quote:Russian plans to assassinate the CEO of Rheinmetall were foiled. Russia is at war with NATO, but NATO doesn't seem to want to fully acknowledge and respond like that's the case.

https://x.com/shashj/status/1811420477857927197

Yep. In fairness, the decision tree in all the NATO countries is pretty convoluted. Unless there are Russian troops streaming across your border lots of "stakeholders" won't acknowledge the problem. Putin knows this and is taking advantage.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-11-2024

(07-10-2024, 05:59 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  https://www.wsj.com/world/us-weapons-russia-ukraine-0eed240c?st=iipgz1jfb1l9cl6&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Wall Street Journal Article reiterating much of what I can read here from Goose's excellent analysis.  The Russians are learning countermeasures to Western-supplied technology.

Interesting article. It seems to be contradicting previous statements that the SDB inaccuracy problems in the presence of jamming had been remedied by software improvements. Hard to know which is correct. OTOH Ukraine has few aircract that can use them, so it may not matter that much.

I appreciate the quote you cite from the article. However I believe that the press and many of the "talking heads" over interpret the heck out of the data. They want to extract basic "truths" from little evidence. Human nature, but it can be dangerous. I am going to "correct" the quote below :-).

Quote:

Quote:Western military doctrine has long relied on a belief necessity that SPEED, mobility and precision can defeat mass—meaning that well-targeted strikes can cripple a more numerous enemy, reducing the need for massive expenditure on troops, tanks and artillery.

During the Cold War we lacked the ability to maintain an adequate standing army to "match up" with Russia man-to-man. That is still true in a long war. We had to beat them utilizing many fewer highly trained troops. Our expenditures on troops and tanks were indeed massive. We train the heck out of our troops, very much unlike Russia. That costs piles of money. Instead of artillery we spent massive amounts of money on air superiority. Our plan was/is to get inside the enemies decision cycle and move so fast that Russia couldn't react quickly enough to get their superior mass in a place where it could stop us. We had to always "be ready to fight tonight" and expected the war to be a "come as you are" event that would not last long enough for even medium term "lessons learned" to matter. Ukraine is fighting virtually without an Air Force and has no ability to move troops FAST anywhere. Both Ukraine and Russia are engaged in trench warfare. Until recently the VKS was a non-factor. Extrapolating results in Ukraine to evaluate NATO  strategic and tactical planning is therefore highly suspect. Yes, if you run the Wishbone with just the up back and no halfbacks it probably won't work well :-). Both "teams" are doing that. Russia has a bigger OL and just keeps substituting fresh players.

Quote:

Quote:That proposition, however, had not been tested in a major war until Ukraine. The introduction of Western weapons there showed that what may have worked against Saddam Hussein’s army, the Taliban or Islamic State guerrillas won’t necessarily perform against a modern military like Russia’s or China’s.

“We have probably made some bad assumptions because over the last 20 years we were launching precision weapons against people that could not do anything about it,” said retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe. “Now we are doing it against a peer opponent, and Russia and China do have these capabilities.”

Ukraine is not capable of executing a rapid "Hail Mary" offensive against a weak left flank like we did in the First Gulf war. There is no comparison. Russia had developed tactical GPS jamming that Saddam used briefly in the Second Gulf War. Russia however did not have anywhere near enough of them to make a significant impact when they invaded Ukraine in 2022. It took about a year before the "precision strike" weapons we delivered to Ukraine were severely degraded across most of the battlefield. Ukraine gave Russia time to correct a deficiency in their defense. Russia learned and prioritized building more jammers. Never, ever, ever give Russia time. Ukraine was unable to do this.

Russia still does not, and will never have adequate jamming capability to protect every important target in their country. The "peer" opponent had convoys of troops and supplies at a dead standstill across the Ukrainian landscape for WEEKS at the start of the war. These convoys would have been wiped out by the USAF within two to four hours in a "real" war. The casualties would have been horrendous. Ukraine could do nothing like that.

It is true that the US has not upgraded its existing precision strike weapons to resist GPS jamming. This may be because we did not believe Russia had enough jammers to require us to do so. In the US military it was (and I assume still is) the responsibility of the USAF to maintain and update the EORBAT. It is also their responsibility to destroy any emitters that can degrade our weapon's accuracy, such as SAM radars. Artillery locating radars are arguably in the same category. GPS jammers are also included in that category. It is unknown as to whether and to what degree they would be doing that. HARMs can do it. Of course, the USAF is not present in Ukraine. That is IMO the issue that has not been addressed by NATO in the Ukraine. What can be done instead? It isn't being answered.

Quote:

Quote:One of the lessons learned in Ukraine is about the continuing importance of old-school unguided artillery shells, the manufacturing of which is only now beginning to pick up in the U.S. and Europe after decades of decline, said Lt. Gen. Esa Pulkkinen, the permanent secretary of Finland’s defense ministry. “They are immune to any type of jamming, and they will go to target regardless of what type of electronic warfare capability there may be,” he said.

Almost true. The literal truth is that the rounds will go to where they were aimed subject to the ballistic accuracy of the weapons. It takes a very large number of artillery rounds guarantee even a non-moving target will be destroyed. Their CEP isn't great. "Dumb" bombs work fine for that too. That is the "NATO equivalent", mostly but not entirely courtesy of the USAF. It is a lot easier to concentrate aircraft than it is to concentrate artillery. That is why NATO hasn't emphasized artillery nearly as much as Russia has.

It is also true that about the time the General's artillery rounds reach their zenith the Firefinders will have a solution that is on the way to counter-battery or air-support assets. The artillery that fired it better be displacing like mad and can't wait around to fire a second salvo. If not, they will rapidly become combat ineffective :-). A whole bunch of artillery has a much bigger footprint that a single tactical missile launcher. Hard to move all of it at once. It also takes much more logistical support. There is no "free lunch".

Precision strike weapons are much more economic in such conditions, if they work. If the target is moving, both types of weapons have a problem. NATO generally wants to be moving :-). A significant problem for both conventional artillery and precision strike weapons is FINDING the target. In Ukraine, it is easier because there isn't much movement, but in a dynamic situation that is a serious issue. Drones make a great contribution to solving this issue.

Another quote from the article:

Quote:“We should assume that adaptation will always occur, and the Russians have adapted to a variety of things,” said Rob Lee, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. “The capabilities will be most effective immediately after they are introduced, and adversaries will develop countermeasures over time.”

Right! That is why we must never give them time. Exploit the new capabilities to the absolute max ASAP and force Russia to move back. Once they are moving, keep them at least trying to move. In the middle of the retreat, introduce another new capability. Their poorly trained troops won't be able to retreat in good order while offering meaningful resistance. Give them NO TIME. That is the formula NATO intends to use.

Quote:Goose has convinced me that honing in on jamming signals ought to be a no-brainer, and yet...

BC

I am still absolutely mystified as to why this is the case. I am sure people that can use AI and video processing to destroy targets can much more easily home in on a powerful signal operating on a known frequency. Even if the jammers were doing something "clever" (which from the reports we have, sparse though they are, they are not) this is easy to do. Even if they "blink" a lot, drones have the persistence to remain in the area and continue to attack when the signal returns. If the jammer stays off, it continues to exist but is useless. That is a win. Makes no sense to me.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 07-11-2024

Quote:Unfortunately RFIs are a dime for several dozen. Means very little. I know, we answered lots of them over the years :-). Oftentimes it was in response by a legitimate need that the military bureaucracy had no intention of actually satisfying. They needed to "do something", and the RFI was it. Then everybody forgets all about it. Of course, we do need such a development, but we need it now, not 24 months from now.

My understanding is that an "RFP" was what was just released, the RFI was from a few months ago, 16 companies apparently replied with proposals. Speculation is that the existing PJDAM prototype from Boeing may fit the parameters, so perhaps could move quickly.

Hopefully an updated guidance package to evade Russian jamming will be incorporated if the PJDAM is chosen. The Storm Shadows and SCALPs certainly have seemed accurate in their limited usage, not sure how feasible it would be to adapt some of their features such as the IR camera for terminal guidance.

The GLSDB initiative took about a year and was only somewhat effective when it happened, hopefully this turns out better and as quick as possible.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-12-2024

(07-11-2024, 08:18 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  

Quote:Unfortunately RFIs are a dime for several dozen. Means very little. I know, we answered lots of them over the years :-). Oftentimes it was in response by a legitimate need that the military bureaucracy had no intention of actually satisfying. They needed to "do something", and the RFI was it. Then everybody forgets all about it. Of course, we do need such a development, but we need it now, not 24 months from now.

My understanding is that an "RFP" was what was just released, the RFI was from a few months ago, 16 companies apparently replied with proposals. Speculation is that the existing PJDAM prototype from Boeing may fit the parameters, so perhaps could move quickly. Why HARMs are not being used to do this task I do not know. The range of the JDAM-ER might be the main reason, along with it being cheaper. It may be that sticking a "modernized" version of the HARM low-band seeker on the bomb is a possible way to go, especially if it is being designed for L band targets only. Whatever is done can't alter the flight characteristics of the bomb much or it will not work well.

Hopefully an updated guidance package to evade Russian jamming will be incorporated if the PJDAM is chosen. The Storm Shadows and SCALPs certainly have seemed accurate in their limited usage, not sure how feasible it would be to adapt some of their features such as the IR camera for terminal guidance.

The GLSDB initiative took about a year and was only somewhat effective when it happened, hopefully this turns out better and as quick as possible.

I didn't see anything about an RFP in the X posts, but I assume you are referring to something along the lines of
https://www.yahoo.com/news/air-force-cheap-fast-produce-013926296.html

They asked all 16 companies that responded to the RFI for a proposal. It will be interesting to see how many do. IMO it appears this program is a LONG way out. A clue will be how quickly they down-select to two companies. This will of course require another RFP round, at a minimum. Coming out of Eglin also is an indication this is not a "mainstream" requirement. That however may not be all bad as some significant amount of "procedure" can be short-circuited. That said, development of an entirely "new" weapon is going to be a relatively long process.

The affordability requirement undoubtedly makes weapons developed previously non-starters. As designed they are too expensive. I dearly hope the USAF does not accept an approach from a vendor saying "We have the technical solution. All we need to do is figure out how to build it cheaper." The "make it cheaper" approach has a long and bitter history of failing. For one thing the manufacture's corporate culture is not oriented towards affordability. Second, the only practical way to make existing weapons more affordable almost always requires significant redesign of "important" sections. This requires testing everything again. Usually there was a reason the more expensive approach was initially used and the redesigned weapon doesn't work as well/at all.

I am actually much more excited about the following from May 3 of which I was unaware:
https://www.twz.com/air/jdam-er-winged-bombs-with-seekers-that-home-in-on-gps-jammers-headed-to-ukraine

Quote:The Pentagon announced today that the U.S. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) had awarded Cypress, California-headquartered Scientific Applications and Research Associates Inc. a contract valued at $23,554,341 for “the acquisition of Home-on GPS Jam seekers” and the “integration of the extended range seekers into existing Joint Direct Attack Munition wing kits.”
“This contract involves Foreign Military Sales to Ukraine,” the Pentagon’s announcement also noted.

The contractor is a smaller company and they are only building seekers, not weapons. Existing seekers can do this job, so building "adapter packages" could be a reasonable approach. Using existing IP and/or components could greatly reduce risk and development time. Even a de novo implementation could be done reasonably quickly. It is much more likely IMO that an organization like this has a prayer of executing on time and under budget. Companies like Boeing and Lockheed inherently cannot.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-15-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-leading-russia-demographic-catastrophe-162016828.html

Some bit of "optimism" but very short on hard facts. Russia's "meat offensives" are indeed producing lots of casualties. What the article fails to understand is that these are people Putin actively wants to get rid of anyway. He doesn't care how many of his ethnic minorities or criminal class die, in fact, more the better. Yes, it is an ethnic disaster for these groups, but not for "real Russians". The million young people who fled aren't a problem. They will come back when they realize Russia isn't going to send them in harm's way. Yes, they may be conscripted, but they will be counting snowmobiles in Siberia (worst case), not being slaughtered in Ukraine. The article makes no real estimate of when he will "run out" of these "undesirable" people and send lots of "real Russians" into harm's way. While that is a good and relevant question, IMO the better question is whether Russia can "win" in Ukraine using these very low quality soldiers. Russia may be betting that Ukraine will collapse before Russia actually has to defeat them and/or that lack of support from the US will deprive Ukraine of the means to continue resisting. Unfortunately the latter is a very real possibility in the near term.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 07-19-2024

Might be a bit premature, but it would be hilarious if the Russia lost a naval war to a country without a navy.

https://x.com/TristanSnell/status/1813729015401975958

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-20-2024

(07-19-2024, 08:12 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Might be a bit premature, but it would be hilarious if the Russia lost a naval war to a country without a navy.

https://x.com/TristanSnell/status/1813729015401975958

BC

To be fair, Ukraine had a navy at the start of the war in 2022. It was small and had only one "significant" combatant, the frigate Hetman Sahaidachny. She was scuttled by her crew to prevent capture by Russia. In 2014 the Ukrainian navy was significantly larger but it lost all its ships (but the the frigate Hetman Sahaidachny) in the Russian occupation of Crimea. A significant number of officers and men of the Ukrainian navy at that time deserted to the Russian navy. That said, the nucleus of the Ukrainian navy has indeed punched far above its weight. Their use of UAVs and anti-ship missiles has been bold, innovative and successful beyond anything expected. Even more impressively the Ukrainian navy has developed several different classes of USVs that have had great success against Russian surface vessels. They have done this in the middle of a war which is even more impressive.

However, Ukraine has not in any way "won" the naval war. No place in the Black Sea does Ukraine possess "Sea Control". Ukraine grain shipments still have to sail totally inside the territorial waters of NATO nations to protect themselves against Russian attack. Russia OTOH benefits from uncontested commercial shipping operations throughout the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. This can easily be confirmed by viewing any one of the many AIS tracking websites. Most importantly multiple military ferries carry both troops and weapons from Russia to the occupied territories in southern Ukraine. The three Kalibr capable Kilos operating out of Novorossiysk launch these missiles into Ukraine with impunity. The total of four operational Kilos can sink anything they want to in the Black Sea. On top of that Russia has absolute air supremacy over the Black Sea. That isn't going to change anytime soon, at least until Ukraine gets an air force again.

Ukraine has attacked Russian naval ships in their Crimean home ports with significant success. Russia has chosen to move their (relatively few) remaining surface naval assets to safer ports rather than attempting to counter the Ukrainian USVs. Given Putin's disdain for the navy and the lack of initiative shown as a result, this relocation of assets makes good sense. It also greatly mitigates the need to defend against cruise missile attacks from Ukraine (Storm Shadows mostly). While it may be politically embarrassing it is likely to "work" at least for a while. The "bottom line" however is that Russia can still operate freely in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. It is not totally "risk free" and abject stupidity can be punished by Ukraine. OTOH Ukraine can in no way operate "freely" in these waters. Ukraine hasn't "won" anything yet. A few nice minefields around Russian ports would be a big step in the right direction though :-).

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 07-21-2024

Seeing a lot of reports of diminishing Russian artillery capacity and inability to get enough barrels. Just as T90s are a diminishing quantity of Russian tanks being destroyed 152mm guns are declining pretty rapidly while smaller caliber hodgepodge are increasing. 

Also seeing more and more successful drone strikes on Russian logistics, refineries, etc. I wonder if we are seeing the cumulative effects of degradation of Russian capacity. 

If Im Ukraine, it seems the best course of action may just be to let the Russians keep throwing themselves into the grinder. Continue to degrade their capacity of men and materiel with cheap drones , and wait as long as politically possible before trying another offensive, ideally after F16s have been integrated.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-21-2024

(07-21-2024, 02:59 PM)gocard14 Wrote:  Seeing a lot of reports of diminishing Russian artillery capacity and inability to get enough barrels. Just as T90s are a diminishing quantity of Russian tanks being destroyed 152mm guns are declining pretty rapidly while smaller caliber hodgepodge are increasing.

I have seen similar statements. 152mm artillery is the "core" of Russian artillery. So far, it isn't serious enough to be "confirmed" yet AFAIK.

Quote:Also seeing more and more successful drone strikes on Russian logistics, refineries, etc. I wonder if we are seeing the cumulative effects of degradation of Russian capacity.

IMO it is more the Ukrainian's improvisation of new long-range striking capabilities over the years of the war. Russia never had the ability to protect even most of its important military and industrial sites from such attacks. It isn't easy to do best case. You need an active and competent air force that can defend their air space and areas within it. Back in the early 1990s the PVO could do it. It no longer exists.

Quote:If Im Ukraine, it seems the best course of action may just be to let the Russians keep throwing themselves into the grinder. Continue to degrade their capacity of men and materiel with cheap drones , and wait as long as politically possible before trying another offensive, ideally after F16s have been integrated.

Ukraine right now has no other option but to hunker down and hope Russia will eventually quit. If the US stops providing significant aid, that approach will probably fail, but that is all there is. Starting another offensive is definitely off the table until Ukraine has an air force. Hopefully that will be "soon".

Sadly it may be true that North Korea can provide Russia with large quantities of replacement artillery, if required. It undoubtedly will have its problems, but if one has "enough" of it it won't matter.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 07-23-2024

Some may find these two reports from ISW of interest.  The first highlights the increased cooperation between Russia and North Korea, and Russia's (Putin's) efforts to established more bases of influence in the Americas.  The second report reflects the apparent inability of our diplotmats to have an effective influence in Georgia which now appears to be more in the Russian orbit than ours.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-22-2024

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-21-2024

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 07-23-2024

(07-23-2024, 08:29 AM)GK3 Wrote:  Some may find these two reports from ISW of interest.  The first highlights the increased cooperation between Russia and North Korea, and Russia's (Putin's) efforts to established more bases of influence in the Americas.  The second report reflects the apparent inability of our diplotmats to have an effective influence in Georgia which now appears to be more in the Russian orbit than ours.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-22-2024

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-21-2024

The Caucasus region is a mess.  Geography arguably makes Moldova a better target than Georgia for EU accession, but I don't think Moldova is doing particularly well these days either.  As they say, it's easier to break something than to build something, and Russia excels at breaking things.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-23-2024

(07-23-2024, 10:36 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(07-23-2024, 08:29 AM)GK3 Wrote:  Some may find these two reports from ISW of interest.  The first highlights the increased cooperation between Russia and North Korea, and Russia's (Putin's) efforts to established more bases of influence in the Americas.  The second report reflects the apparent inability of our diplotmats to have an effective influence in Georgia which now appears to be more in the Russian orbit than ours.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-22-2024

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-21-2024

The Caucasus region is a mess.  Geography arguably makes Moldova a better target than Georgia for EU accession, but I don't think Moldova is doing particularly well these days either.  As they say, it's easier to break something than to build something, and Russia excels at breaking things.

At one point in history the vast majority of the Georgian population wanted "out" of the Russian orbit. Like Ukraine, they expected lots of aid from the US that they did not get. Unfortunately for Georgia they were even lower on the totem poll than Ukraine in terms of "importance" for the US. Even worse for Georgia their geography basically precludes relying on overland trade to prosper. They need unfettered access to the Black Sea. When Russia was allowed to invade Georgia in 2008 (from the sea) without any consequences, the message to all Georgians was clear. Nobody cares. Many still do prefer independence, but fewer all the time. Russia is today using Georgia as the "home port" of the remaining surface assets of the Black Sea fleet. Lots of Georgian trade goes through the "Russified" ports of Georgia. Russia can shut down any remaining access to the Black Sea any time it wants. Georgians know this. Russia has also continuously propagandized the part of Georgia they don't presently occupy. The part of Georgia Russia occupies isn't resisting the occupation. Things are "fine" there, more or less. IMO it is inevitable that the rest of Georgia will eventually capitulate. They really have no other choice. The get no help from "the west" and Russia is right there all the time.

Moldova has close cultural ties to Romania. They are poor, but not as poor as Ukraine. If Transnistria wasn't staffed by Russians and simply rejoined Moldova, Moldova would be in pretty good shape. Obviously they will never be a economic powerhouse, but neither is North Macedonia. Moldova has a ways to go before they could be considered for membership, but it is clearly possible. Moldova is also poorer than Georgia, FWIW.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-25-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-destroys-putin-last-railway-143622152.html
In so far as this is accurate, it is "important". Producing new railway ferries isn't all that easy, although it is clearly possible. Forcing Russia to use just the bridge for everything clearly makes the Russians very nervous. Kiev has also done major damage (supposedly) to the railway across the land bridge. There is a pattern here. Ukraine clearly wants to create a situation where Crimea is isolated and "at risk". It is unclear to me how Ukraine expects to "back this up" with a ground offensive. If they can, that is great. If they can't, not sure what the point of this is. OTOH, if you don't have a plan you can't execute it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-26-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-scale-back-front-lines-112941562.html

Russia has the option to control the pace of the war. They can (and probably will) go on defense, certainly by when the rains start at the latest. Russia will take a breakthrough if they can get it in the short term. If they don't, pausing to rebuild their mass of untrained/partially trained troops makes sense. They undoubtedly intend to overwhelm Ukraine with numbers next spring if they can't do it this year. IMO Ukraine making it until Russia goes on defense is a "win". It wasn't (and isn't quite yet) a sure thing.

Next year Ukraine may be in better shape. It also may be in similar shape. If it is in a similar condition next spring, IMO the Ukraine will outright lose the war. Then again, I was unsure but not optimistic about their chances through this summer. What is hard to calibrate is how well Russia's military can and will perform. Russia did some smart things this year that really pushed Ukraine to the wall. However, Russia couldn't close the deal. Their "meat assaults" couldn't overcome Ukraine's defenses even though Ukraine was stretch very thin. The constant missile (and now air) attacks, while seriously harming Ukraine, so far isn't sufficient. It does have a cumulative effect though.

In theory, Russia can amass enough troops and open enough new offensives that Ukraine simply will fail due to lack of numbers. In practice it is unclear they can execute. It is unclear they actually have a strategy beyond banging away until Ukraine folds up due to morale collapse or Ukraine is no longer able to be adequately supplied by the west. Ukraine needs a strategy to deny Russia the ability to fight the war on Russia's schedule and whim. If Ukraine can't do that, they eventually lose, period.

---