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 - 07-22-2022

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-isn-t-russia-jamming-105200516.html Some conjectures on why Russia has not been jamming GPS extensively. The Ukrainians will certainly be using GPS for their Excalibur 155 mm rounds and their GMLRS rounds. These both have INS as a primary guidance system but GPS correction is valuable when available. The references in the article to GPS spoofing are accurate, but "military grade" GPS is resistant to many (not all) of the things that will fool your cell phone. The article presents some ideas, but it is still a bit of a mystery why Russia has done so little GPS jamming.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 07-22-2022

[tweet]https://twitter.com/euromaidanpr/status/1550586379859640320?s=21&t=QE97bI2ve7MIeKTT0F_6Bg[/tweet]

Pretty ballsy.  Hopefully a sign of confidence in their planned counterattack.

BC

---

I guess referring to this…
[tweet]https://twitter.com/stateofukraine/status/1550582644613734406?s=21&t=X2JEz23QMnS13edYPvU0Ow[/tweet]

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-22-2022

(07-22-2022, 09:46 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  https://twitter.com/euromaidanpr/status/1550586379859640320?s=21&t=QE97bI2ve7MIeKTT0F_6Bg

Pretty ballsy.  Hopefully a sign of confidence in their planned counterattack.

BC

---

I guess referring to this…
https://twitter.com/stateofukraine/status/1550582644613734406?s=21&t=X2JEz23QMnS13edYPvU0Ow

BC

Lets hope this is a sign of things to come. I wonder if the request for an evacuation corridor came from the BTG or from "higher authority". If it was from the BTG, this is a real sign of morale issues. This is not their call. Back in "the day" the order was "not one step back". Maybe now not so much.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 07-23-2022

ISW (very pro-Ukraine biased) says it’s unable to confirm the encirclement. Another source I saw says it’s false. I don’t have a strong view one way or the other, but I’d treat this claim as something other than accepted fact at this point.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 07-23-2022

Fair.  Often if it sounds too good to be true…
I did find this, quoting an adviser to the Ukrainian President, but still a Ukrainian source.

https://odessa-journal.com/arestovich-confirmed-the-encirclement-of-a-group-of-russians-in-the-kherson-region-and-revealed-the-details/

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-23-2022

(07-23-2022, 03:05 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Fair.  Often if it sounds too good to be true…
I did find this, quoting an adviser to the Ukrainian President, but still a Ukrainian source.

https://odessa-journal.com/arestovich-confirmed-the-encirclement-of-a-group-of-russians-in-the-kherson-region-and-revealed-the-details/

BC

I think we have all seen many reports from both sides that are only partially true or downright false. Anybody can tweet something and it becomes a discussion topic for a while. Sometimes such reports are confirmed or debunked. Oftentimes they just fade away. If Ukraine has managed to surround an entire BTG and causes it to surrender, even if the BTG was under-strength and composed entirely of cooks, it will be a big propaganda victory for them. This is true even if it has little actual tactical impact. It will make Russian officers look at their neighboring units and wonder "Will these guys fold and leave my flank in the air?" That will make a not very aggressive Army even less aggressive. Lets hope its true but remain appropriately skeptical.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-24-2022

https://english.nv.ua/amp/us-will-not-send-ukraine-long-range-missiles-for-himars-russia-ukraine-war-50258417.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-aiming-arm-ukraine-30-104700714.html

The apparent "goal" for the present is to provide 30 HIMARS systems to Ukraine. The statement that we do not have 100 such systems in our arsenal  is probably true only under a very limited definition of "our arsenal". 540 such systems were built for the US, and many others for our allies. This statement IMHO is very disingenuous. I agree with the Ukrainians that 30 HIMARS won't be enough to do the job. I don't agree they need 100 to do so. That is a "nice to have". Ukraine needs enough HIMARS that it can go on the offensive in at least one area (preferably more) and still defend everywhere else. Ukraine is a big country. 30 HIMARS won't allow them to do that. There are also going to be combat losses and required maintenance intervals. You can't use every asset you have 24/7 for months and expect them to hold up.

The statement that the US would not sent ATACMS to Ukraine was exceedingly stupid IMHO. While I disagree with the policy, that isn't why I think the statement was stupid. First, it expressed the idea that doing so moved us all closer to WW III. While that may be arguably true, saying that we believe that gives credence to the idea that is indeed true and allows Russia to say that and then cite our government as agreeing. Stupid. Second, telling Russia what we are not going to do allows them to plan knowing that they don't have to worry about ATACMS, at least for now.

Even if we have no intention of sending such weapons, saying we won't isn't necessary or helpful. This is especially true if we decide to reverse this policy in the future. A statement that said we will announce what we are sending when we send it is the only correct policy IMHO. The Russians don't need to have advance warning. Some may say indicating we won't do something reduces the risk of a wider war. That might be true if we were really sure we wouldn't be doing it later and if Russia believed our statement of intent was durable. They clearly don't believe the latter (from past experience), so the statement has no utility in reducing risk. All it does is give Russia assurance that an ATACMS isn't going to fall on their head for the immediate future, indicates a limited commitment to Ukrainian victory, and makes us look foolish when/if we reverse it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 07-24-2022

I wonder if the ATACMS statement is a strategic bluff. Let the Russians set up their supply depots outside if standard HIMAR range but well within ATACMS range. Begin to deliver them. Then announce delivery just before launching attacks on said depots.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 07-24-2022

While I want ATACMS to be sent ASAP, we do have limited stocks of them, so any we donate would be more cherry on top versus game changer. And we have gone back on our initial declarations when it comes to weapons we would deliver several times, without any negative consequence.

If we send ATACMS, I don't think our presently saying we won't will be any issue. We didn't send HIMARS for a while until we did. I do wonder if there are back channel conversations about this somewhere in the vein of if you don't stick to the grain agreement, Ukraine gets ATACMS and we take off the reins.

.....

Some more high value kit taken down in Kherson. Pretty clear the counter attack is coming there, does Russia have enough resources to defend it is the question.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1551216224897581057?s=20&t=Q7eCsBlFW9BXKBR0JQz1Hw[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 07-24-2022

I think everyone would agree that Ukraine could achieve better tactics if the West could supply military equipment in secret. But “the West” consists of ~30 countries that are more-or-less democratic, which complicates things a lot. The people of each of those countries are entitled to know - at least to a significant extent - how deep their nations are delving into the war. And the people of each of those nations needs to be kept on board with the war. The only way to do that - IMHO - is to move deliberately and transparently. It’s unfortunate that Ukraine loses some element of surprise, but it’s better than Ukraine being left way out on a limb with the West no longer able to muster the support to continue supplying weapons at all.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-24-2022

(07-24-2022, 07:54 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  While I want ATACMS to be sent ASAP, we do have limited stocks of them, so any we donate would be more cherry on top versus game changer.

You are certainly correct about limited stocks. These missiles are also more expensive and using them will reveal more of their capabilities. Right now, you are correct Ukraine doesn't absolutely "require" them. However, there are a couple of areas where they would be a big force multiplier even if Ukraine never fired one (or fired relatively few). First, their extended range would allow many fewer HIMARS maneuvering further back from the FEBA to effectively defend against Russian attacks in Donbas while Ukraine is attacking in Kherson. If Ukraine had 65 HIMARS, that wouldn't matter much, but with 30 it matters (a lot). Russia probably doesn't have the combat power to defend in Kherson Oblast at a high level while simultaneously attacking in Donbas (or elsewhere) as long as Donbas has an "adequate" level of defense. With limited numbers of HIMARS available to operate there (because of needs in the offensive), a few "long range" ones can effectively stop a limited Russian offensive while Ukraine redeploys its (limited) defensive assets.

Second, the ability to hold at risk troop and supply movements among Donbas, Crimea and Kherson Oblast by rail and the M14 at a minimum complicates Russian planning. It is a lot further from Donbas to Kherson if you have to go via the Kerch bridge instead of the M14/train.  If Russia decides to take the "direct" route Ukraine could, if allowed, really mess up any attempt to transfer resources from one battle area to another. A relatively few missiles can do a lot of damage and stop the movement. That ability can be critical to the success of an offensive. Preventing reinforcement and resupply for a few days/weeks can easily make the difference between the offensive succeeding or failing. 

Quote:And we have gone back on our initial declarations when it comes to weapons we would deliver several times, without any negative consequence.

If we send ATACMS, I don't think our presently saying we won't will be any issue. We didn't send HIMARS for a while until we did.

True, but I don't recall that we ever stated the decision to not supply HIMARS was driven by the fact doing so would increase the danger of WW III. That is an important difference. You are certainly correct that nobody (certainly not Russia) believes that because we do not deliver X today that we won't tomorrow. That is why linking delivering X to increasing WW III probability is IMHO stupid. Granted, it's just words, but he still should not have said it.

Quote:I do wonder if there are back channel conversations about this somewhere in the vein of if you don't stick to the grain agreement, Ukraine gets ATACMS and we take off the reins.

Good question. FWIW I suspect Russia knows that at a minimum it would give us a good excuse. I do think the grain agreement and exactly what Russia has agreed not to do could come under some "stress" along the way. I actually hope it doesn't, because Russia may miscalculate what they can get away with.

Quote:.....

Some more high value kit taken down in Kherson. Pretty clear the counter attack is coming there, does Russia have enough resources to defend it is the question.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1551216224897581057?s=20&t=Q7eCsBlFW9BXKBR0JQz1Hw

Depends a lot on what Ukraine's immediate goals are. If they want to take the city of Kherson, the dam, and establish a line along the river, I don't think Russia can move fast enough to stop them. The defense in that area is probably not sufficiently strong IMHO. There just aren't enough Russians. Russia will have to reinforce from somewhere and their only substantial nearby assets are in Donbas. Russia has not shown the ability to quickly move troops from point A to point B and have them ready to fight on arrival. They theoretically should be able to do this, but have not.

Ukraine so far has confined themselves to attack by light infantry, because that's mostly what they have. They have increasingly started using artillery and HIMARS effectively to augment infantry, but so far only in defense. We are going to see how that goes on offense pretty soon. As long as there are infiltration routes available and the Russians are concentrated in strong points, Ukraine's tactics have every chance of working. Taking the dam if they only hold one side of the river will be extremely costly. I expect they are going to need at least two bridgeheads on the other side of the river to surround/take Kherson city and the dam. There things may get more complicated and more costly. If Ukraine wants to actually liberate the rest of the Oblast, it is going to take more than what they have shown so far to do it. They will need a mechanized force. They may in fact have such a force and we are about to see it used, or they may be expecting to do that "later".

It will be a race to see if A) Russia intends to defend on the west bank of the river (they may not given their actions so far) B) how quickly Ukraine can surround the Russian outposts on the west bank of the river, and C) if and how quickly Russia will deploy reinforcements from Donbas or elsewhere. This is the scenario where 300 km ranges would be "very nice to have".

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 07-24-2022

We made noises about the risk of a wider conflagration every time we give Ukraine a weapon that could theoretically be used to attack Russia proper.  It was true about jets, which now Ukraine is starting to get, it was true about HIMARS, until we got assurances that the Ukrainians would not use it to target Russian territory, and hopefully, it will be true about ATACAMS.  My guess is that we are waiting to see how Ukraine does with the HIMARS, and if they are responsible and effective, there will be discussions about ATACAMS under the same circumstances.

As for the blockade, Russia attacked Odessa yesterday, within 24 hours of the agreement, and the day before the Russian foreign minister went to try to rally support in Africa. Russia is like honey badger.



I think the grain agreement is doomed.  It’s time we act accordingly.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-24-2022

(07-24-2022, 10:10 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  I think everyone would agree that Ukraine could achieve better tactics if the West could supply military equipment in secret. But “the West” consists of ~30 countries that are more-or-less democratic, which complicates things a lot. The people of each of those countries are entitled to know - at least to a significant extent - how deep their nations are delving into the war. And the people of each of those nations needs to be kept on board with the war. The only way to do that - IMHO - is to move deliberately and transparently. It’s unfortunate that Ukraine loses some element of surprise, but it’s better than Ukraine being left way out on a limb with the West no longer able to muster the support to continue supplying weapons at all.

Agree, but even more reason to not associate a step the west may well take in the future with an increased risk of WW III. It is also not wise to say we won't do some particular act without adding "at this time". The public may (correctly IMHO) point out that the government said they would not do X and then did exactly that.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-24-2022

(07-24-2022, 12:11 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  We made noises about the risk of a wider conflagration every time we give Ukraine a weapon that could theoretically be used to attack Russia proper.  It was true about jets, which now Ukraine is starting to get, it was true about HIMARS, until we got assurances that the Ukrainians would not use it to target Russian territory, and hopefully, it will be true about ATACAMS.  My guess is that we are waiting to see how Ukraine does with the HIMARS, and if they are responsible and effective, there will be discussions about ATACAMS under the same circumstances.

Which jets BC? AFAIK not yet any F-16 or the like. I do agree with you that we have dithered about supplying items that could be used to attack Russia. In a way it is silly, because almost any weapon COULD be used to attack Russia (there are adjacent boundaries). I am pretty sure Ukraine gave us assurances that they would be bound by whatever ROE we set for each and every weapon we have ever given them. Whether we believed them was another matter.

My belief is that the concern is trying to figure out how Russia will respond to the action and how necessary the action is. We gave Ukraine HIMARS only when it became absolutely obvious that if we didn't Russia was going to grind them up. It wasn't that we did or didn't trust Ukraine more, it was that the alternative was so bad we took the risk. The fact that the situation in Donbas is better lends support to the idea HIMARS was a good idea and that Ukraine can use them effectively. Unfortunately it will be difficult for Ukraine to demonstrate absolute, desperate need for ATACMS, so they may never get it.

As I have previously stated, the west and Ukraine have to make a plan for a Ukrainian victory and how that can happen. Right now, Ukraine says they need 100 HIMARS to drive Russia out and we say that isn't happening. OK, what's the alternative? The powers that be don't have to tell us what the plan is, but if they don't have one, Ukraine is probably doomed. Just waiting to see what happens is not a good idea.

Quote:As for the blockade, Russia attacked Odessa yesterday, within 24 hours of the agreement, and the day before the Russian foreign minister went to try to rally support in Africa. Russia is like honey badger.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/15/ef/7115ef4f246a40066a8cd6377241553e.jpg

I think the grain agreement is doomed.  It’s time we act accordingly.

BC

I think some form of the grain agreement will be executed and grain will be shipped. The question is what Russia will do around the edges. The attack on Odessa was a message saying "This isn't forbidden by the agreement explicitly. Therefore, we can do it". Obviously it was against the spirit of the agreement, but I certainly didn't imagine this agreement would end hostilities. The question is whether any two countries that are at war can actually execute such an agreement. It is kind of an oxymoron IMHO. BC, could you expand on what you think we should do to act accordingly?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 07-24-2022

What I meant is that we should stop worrying about the effect of our actions on Russia.  Russia is going to do what it’s going to do, and no amount of our kowtowing to their feelings is really going to change things.

So we should give Ukraine whatever weapons they need to win that we can afford to give.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-24-2022

(07-24-2022, 05:57 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  What I meant is that we should stop worrying about the effect of our actions on Russia.  Russia is going to do what it’s going to do, and no amount of our kowtowing to their feelings is really going to change things.

So we should give Ukraine whatever weapons they need to win that we can afford to give.

BC

Makes sense in many ways. My take is similar but slightly different. I think we need to make a plan in conjunction with Ukraine that we collectively think will work. Then we should look at that plan and determine what weapons and quantities we think will be necessary. At that point we should determine if we believe it is too risky to proceed. If it is, we should stop. If it isn't, we should go ahead immediately and do all of what we think will be needed. This should have already been done, because if there is no way ahead we are wasting lives and resources.

I do think we have to pay some attention to what Russia might do. If that weren't true, we would just use our own Army and Air Force. However, we should "go for it" immediately on the things we think are necessary. Incrementalism and "wait and see if we really need to do X" is a recipe for failure. It was clear from the first Ukraine was going to need HIMARS or a complete new air force to prevent Russia from grinding on them. Delay hoping something "might not be necessary" will just ensure it is necessary and put Ukraine in a worse strategic position when we do act.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 07-24-2022

Is it a recipe for failure? I think the US system has worked thus far. They have provided equipment at a small but ever increasing scale while trying not to overwhelm with new equipment or pulling too many men off the front lines. Would a few weeks here or there made an ultimate difference with HIMARS or M777s? I don't think on a strategic level anything would've been different.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Softball Fan - 07-24-2022

(07-24-2022, 05:57 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  What I meant is that we should stop worrying about the effect of our actions on Russia.  Russia is going to do what it’s going to do, and no amount of our kowtowing to their feelings is really going to change things.

So we should give Ukraine whatever weapons they need to win that we can afford to give.

BC

I agree.  It seems like the West is giving Ukraine just enough weapons to not lose the war.  IMO if Ukraine were to start pushing Russia totally out of Ukraine with pea shooters and slingshots, Putin would ramp up the talk about tactical nuclear weapons.  The conundrum is if Ukraine were to dramatically start winning the war IMO Putin would do something crazy.  It's really not about which weapons are used.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-24-2022

(07-24-2022, 07:11 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Is it a recipe for failure? I think the US system has worked thus far. They have provided equipment at a small but ever increasing scale while trying not to overwhelm with new equipment or pulling too many men off the front lines. Would a few weeks here or there made an ultimate difference with HIMARS or M777s? I don't think on a strategic level anything would've been different.

Well, as you probably know I believe beginning the process of deploying HIMARS back in the middle of March would have got them there at least a month and a half sooner and possibly a bit more. Given that Ukraine now believes the situation in the Donbas is "manageable", having it be so at the end of May/first week of June would have kept Russia out of most of Luhansk, in particular the cities of Severodonetsk and Lysychansk as well as the surrounding area. It would also have saved probably 1500 Ukranian soldier's lives at a minimum and God knows how many civilians. Strategically, this is significantly different. Ukraine will now have to fight to take those cities back and use up lives and resources doing it. Furthermore, they are totally destroyed which would not be the case if Russian artillery could have been suppressed. So yes, I think that is pretty different.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 07-24-2022

This presumes that only the arrival of a few HIMARS was the difference in stopping Russia's Donbas offensive, rather than it being a natural culmination. I think they are making a difference, but I doubt that getting them a few more HIMARS a month earlier would've prevented Russia from capturing Luhansk.

---