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 - 06-26-2022

(06-26-2022, 03:37 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  looks like Russian command structure has been re-jiggered, again.

https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1540998188236251136?s=21&t=6UYb4bDqzga0n4nYU80Fbw

BC

This isn't exactly good news for "our side". Russia's churn in military leaders will continue until they find ones who are ruthless enough and also smart enough to be successful despite the flaws in their forces. See Zhukov and Konev. It may be that they never find the "right guy", but the fact they have the opportunity and willingness to continue looking means it is possible they might.

Quote:This is the most optimistic take I’ve seen in a while.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/25/ukraine-russia-balance-of-forces/

Hope it is a clear eyed assessment and not wishcasting.

Quote:The Russian military will soon exhaust its combat capabilities and be forced to bring its offensive in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region to a grinding halt, according to Western intelligence predictions and military experts.

There is lots in the WAPO article that is unquestionably true. The argument that the Russian's will exhaust their capabilities is rational. However, as the article does point out, the Russians have already expended more artillery ammunition than the West thought they possessed. The belief that they are near the end of their rope in this regard is risky. We obviously don't know how much they have. If they run out, great! However, assuming they will isn't a good strategy.

The reduction in the pace of operations does indicate that there will be a pause in the war. Some believe Russia will reorient their efforts towards Donetsk Oblast which will require a similar pause to what happened earlier in the war. Many also believe they don't have the combat power to do that. The article also admits that Russia is approaching Lysychansk from the South on the Western side of the river. From a strategic point of view, this is the problem. The Russians are across the river to the South. All the failed river crossings in the North mean nothing if they can just roll up the South bank. While it is undoubtedly true the Russians don't have the combat power to do that today, assuming they won't have it by August is probably unwise.

The article also indicates the Ukraine will become stronger as it more fully integrates the systems the West has provided. While this is undoubtedly true, it is equally true that Ukraine will not be able to match Russia gun for gun and rocket for rocket. Ukraine will ultimately be (understandably) in the position NATO was always in, quantitatively inferior but (hopefully) qualitatively superior. NATO relied on out-maneuvering the Russians. NATO also had armies that had trained for years to do exactly that and an air force that understood what was required of them. NATO never actually had to find out if they could do it. Ukraine will not have that air force and will have to make do with much less training. Ukraine will also have to endure continued rocket attacks on their rear areas that they cannot reply against (even if the had the weapons to do so). OTOH, they are fighting Russia, not the Warsaw Pact/Soviet Union.

Given the above situation, I think it is obvious nobody knows what will happen. However, it is going to be a "closely run thing" IMHO. Russia isn't just going to fold. Putin will call up a general mobilization if he has to. Hopefully both "the West" and the Ukraine agree on the way forward here and are doing everything possible as quickly as possible. Yes, maybe we could get by with less, but IMHO relying on the other sides weaknesses and unwillingness to fight is always a bad idea. I see far too much of that in the WAPO evaluation. We need to have a plan to beat them even if they do everything "right", because they just might.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-26-2022

Interesting article on CIA and Special Ops forces role in coordinating US aid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/commandos-russia-ukraine.html

Quote:Several lower-level Ukrainian commanders recently expressed appreciation to the United States for intelligence gleaned from satellite imagery, which they can call up on tablet computers provided by the allies. The tablets run a battlefield mapping app that the Ukrainians use to target and attack Russian troops.

On a street in Bakhmut, a town in the hotly contested Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, a group of Ukrainian special operations forces had American flag patches on their gear and were equipped with new portable surface-to-air missiles as well as Belgian and American assault rifles.

“What is an untold story is the international partnership with the special operations forces of a multitude of different countries,” Lt. Gen. Jonathan P. Braga, the commander of U.S. Army Special Operations Command, told senators in April in describing the planning cell. “They have absolutely banded together in a much outsized impact” to support Ukraine’s military and special forces.

Quote:The C.I.A. officers operating in Ukraine have focused on directing the intelligence that the U.S. government has been providing the Ukrainian government. Most of their work has been in Kyiv, according to current and former officials.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 06-26-2022

Rumors are out that the US will purchase NASAMS for Ukraine.  Apparently they already have a radar in service, the MPQ-64, which integrates into the system, and I believe NASAMS will be viable for Ukraine much faster than Patriot missile systems would be.  Anyone know if these would help stop rocket attacks in their major cities, or would this system be used closer to active battle zones?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-26-2022

Big news. US purchasing pretty advanced NASAMS medium range SAM system for Ukraine. Based on the AMRAAM missile and produced by Norway. Was hoping this would happen. 

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1541179512561582085[/tweet]

Edit,- didn't see above post. Should have ability to take out missiles. Obviously how it's deployed depends a lot on how many systems and missiles are purchased but could be a big deal at both tactical level on front and for general air defense.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 06-26-2022

(06-26-2022, 03:58 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Big news. US purchasing pretty advanced NASAMS medium range SAM system for Ukraine. Based on the AMRAAM missile and produced by Norway. Was hoping this would happen. 

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1541179512561582085[/tweet]

Edit,- didn't see above post. Should have ability to take out missiles. Obviously how it's deployed depends a lot on how many systems and missiles are purchased but could be a big deal at both tactical level on front and for general air defense.

Beautiful, and from what I'm seeing a unit costs around 50 million, so way less expensive than a Patriot missile system.  I also noticed the wording was that the US purchased the system for Ukraine.  Does that mean it's not being given under the presidential draw down authority, or is that just because the system was co-created by Raytheon and Norway?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 06-26-2022

HIMARS/GMLRS having an immediate impact, it seems:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1540668239059079169[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-26-2022

Good thread on NASAMS from a former USAF munitions officer

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/MikeBlack114/status/1541185903447638017?s=20&t=65uvTkZC6fPSnHk7HV4lSg[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-26-2022

(06-26-2022, 03:58 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Big news. US purchasing pretty advanced NASAMS medium range SAM system for Ukraine. Based on the AMRAAM missile and produced by Norway. Was hoping this would happen. 

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/154117951256158208

Edit,- didn't see above post. Should have ability to take out missiles. Obviously how it's deployed depends a lot on how many systems and missiles are purchased but could be a big deal at both tactical level on front and for general air defense.

These systems are very effective against aircraft and helicopters. They are also effective against cruise missiles like the Kalibr, IF the geometry is such that the missile can be detected soon enough and IF the missiles low altitude of 50 meters doesn't cause the MPQ-64 or the AMRAM itself to lose the missile in the ground clutter. If the Ukraine can get targeting information early in the Kalibr's flight and relay it to an appropriate missile battery, these missiles can be pretty effective. The MPQ-64F1 has some limitations against low altitude small targets. The MPQ-64A4 mitigates these issues (supposedly) but  I expect that isn't what Ukraine is getting. I don't think anybody really knows how effective these units will be in shooting down cruise missiles like the Kalibr. Naturally, these missiles are pretty useless against things like the KH-32 and the Iskander-m. It probably has some chance against a KH-22, although I don't know if the radar and fire control allow targeting such a missile.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-28-2022

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jackdetsch/status/1541436856348336128?s=21&t=jmQzFJNcClaG4UbxrGKkAA[/tweet]

Confirmation that excaliburs are on the way.

BC

---

Quote:This isn't exactly good news for "our side". Russia's churn in military leaders will continue until they find ones who are ruthless enough and also smart enough to be successful despite the flaws in their forces. See Zhukov and Konev. It may be that they never find the "right guy", but the fact they have the opportunity and willingness to continue looking means it is possible they might.

Maybe, or maybe not.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jackdetsch/status/1541433519565639683?s=21&t=l6Xx1hv0_wa-YOP0-jYKoQ[/tweet]

They might run out of officers before they find ones who are smart and ruthless enough to be successful.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 06-28-2022

Reports are that Ukraine is in the process of withdrawing from Lysychansk, and based on the look of the map, possibly that will spell the end of UA forces in all of Luhansk Oblast.  To the north and East Russia hasn't crossed the natural borders of the river, but the pocket to the south, starting from the fall of Popasna, seems to be where most Russian gains have occurred over the past month, and sadly they have been major.  I'm wondering if Russia will have the offensive capabilities from there to dry and take the rest of the Donbas.  They've had success narrowing their scope and heavily concentrating their forces in breakthroughs, but they've also experienced heavy attraction.  They just surpassed 800 confirmed tank losses, of their likely 1200 the initially allocated (based on 120 BTG's, 10 per BTG).  They've been going to their reserves, but that also means they will have to start using less effective equipment.  There's a long way to go for Ukraine to win back their territory.  

I guess in bright news, Ukraine seems to be continuing to make advancements in the Kherson region, and have mostly held their gains in the Kharkiv area, and seem to have made modest gains in south as well.  Time will tell where this war goes, because anytime I think I know where it's going, things seem to change for better and worse.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-28-2022

(06-28-2022, 06:34 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Maybe, or maybe not.


[tweet]https://twitter.com/jackdetsch/status/1541433519565639683?s=21&t=l6Xx1hv0_wa-YOP0-jYKoQ[/tweet]



They might run out of officers before they find ones who are smart and ruthless enough to be successful.



BC

Trust me BC, there are officers in Russia right now who have the ability to be "the guy". They may be Captains today, but they exist. The much better hope IMHO is that they lose the war before they find "the guys". If they weren't looking and just kept the same poor leadership, it would be better for Ukraine. There is plenty of precedent for Russia keeping bad generals/admirals far too long. They fact they aren't standing pat means they will eventually find a better leadership team. Hopefully they won't last long enough to do that.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-28-2022

Not a good sign for your military when you have to bring back press gangs.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/loogunda/status/1541752997440544775?s=20&t=oor0zLe17VCUzt9RuanWDw[/tweet]

If there were any good Captains in the Russian Army they all probably died in the first couple weeks of the war.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 06-28-2022

It appears Turkey has worked out their issues with Sweden and Finland and will now back their bid for membership. I'd assume if other countries had issues they would have voiced them by now, but it seems like they will be joining the alliance shortly. My first try posting a tweet so my apologies, I still haven't fully learned.   https://twitter.com/PesuMatti/status/1541849092959215619?s=20&t=KFctEtqLycT0clOoxMaLCw

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-28-2022

Yup, seems Turkey's objections at the last minute were not really absolute. Still seems like there are some details to work out.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1541851074721714176?s=20&t=0OEfHN9B7OL79Xi2sJ515Q[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/alexgarcialonso/status/1541850306644004866?s=20&t=pd3d7TmgaLhttDoLHzCSHQ[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 06-28-2022

realpolitik in action, re: Turkey.  Gotta love it.

Agreed with Goose, we need the Russian military old guard to lose this war before the younger generation has a shot to win it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-28-2022

More on Turkey, Finland, and Sweden. Seems like Turkey really didn't get any concessions, mostly just some nice words. Maybe there has been behind the scenes movement on the F16s they wanted that hasn't been made public yet. In any case, a big win for NATO, a big L for Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/world/europe/finland-sweden-nato-membership.html

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 06-28-2022

(06-28-2022, 02:25 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  More on Turkey, Finland, and Sweden. Seems like Turkey really didn't get any concessions, mostly just some nice words. Maybe there has been behind the scenes movement on the F16s they wanted that hasn't been made public yet. In any case, a big win for NATO, a big L for Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/world/europe/finland-sweden-nato-membership.html

Turkey was never going to block Finland and Sweden from Joining NATO. 

How fast can they join?  And is there a way to sort of be unofficial members even though the legal documents and country government approvals are done yet?  I know Russia is screwing around with the baltic states, but having Sweden and Finland in NATO (or effectively in NATO) will make any hostile act toward the baltic NATO members a lot less likely with Finland and Russia sharing a border. It just seems getting those two effectively in the NATO fold ASAP, would be wise.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-28-2022

(06-28-2022, 11:11 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  If there were any good Captains in the Russian Army they all probably died in the first couple weeks of the war.

Good Captains don't get themselves killed :-). That's part of the job description. It is OK to get wounded and a medal though.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-28-2022

(06-28-2022, 05:30 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  

(06-28-2022, 02:25 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  More on Turkey, Finland, and Sweden. Seems like Turkey really didn't get any concessions, mostly just some nice words. Maybe there has been behind the scenes movement on the F16s they wanted that hasn't been made public yet. In any case, a big win for NATO, a big L for Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/world/europe/finland-sweden-nato-membership.html

Turkey was never going to block Finland and Sweden from Joining NATO. 

How fast can they join?  And is there a way to sort of be unofficial members even though the legal documents and country government approvals are done yet?  I know Russia is screwing around with the baltic states, but having Sweden and Finland in NATO (or effectively in NATO) will make any hostile act toward the baltic NATO members a lot less likely with Finland and Russia sharing a border. It just seems getting those two effectively in the NATO fold ASAP, would be wise.

I think that has already been officially done. Before they filed the paperwork, both the head of NATO (Secretary-General Stoltenberg) and the US stated that the Article 5 protection would be in force while their applications were pending. I think that is the best that can be done. Effectively, both countries have been allied with the NATO forces for a while. The US and Sweden just finished a combined exercise in the Baltic.

As far as what Turkey got out of the deal, I think it is basically two things. The first set of things they got is outlined in
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukraine-war/here-is-what-finland-sweden-promised-to-address-turkiyes-security-concerns/2625235. The arms embargoes are lifted. The PKK is reaffirmed as a terrorist organization and more strict enforcement is put in place, especially after July 1. Both of the new members agree not to supply aid to the PKK. These are not trivial concessions, both in substance and in domestic political effect in Turkey. Sweden and Finland both climbed down on the arms embargo and the PKK. What Turkey did not get was a blanket agreement to extradite whoever they may wish. They got an agreement to proceed expeditiously on their requests (which was not happening), but since they have no real evidence, these requests aren't going anywhere anyway. All in all, I think Turkey should be pretty happy on that front. They got their "respect".

The second thing I think Turkey got, although not written down anywhere, is the tacit acceptance of their incursions into Syria by the US (and by extension the rest of NATO). They were going to do it anyway. The arms embargo was about the previous time they did it. It hurts the Kurds that are (were?) allied to the US. We didn't much like that. However, it also hurts the Russians and puts more pressure on their troops (especially air force) in Syria. That we like. So, we made a virtue of necessity and said we still didn't like aspects of the incursion/invasion, but if you must, go ahead. We aren't going to apply new sanctions.

I don't think the F-16 issue was involved because I think the administration already has decided to allow the F-16 purchase and modernization. It is in our best interest. Anything that keeps Turkey inside the tent right now is good. We may have to figure out what Greece is going to get to keep them happy in response to Turkey becoming stronger in the air. Making sausage, but probably wise/necessary.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Softball Fan - 06-28-2022

(06-28-2022, 02:25 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  More on Turkey, Finland, and Sweden. Seems like Turkey really didn't get any concessions, mostly just some nice words. Maybe there has been behind the scenes movement on the F16s they wanted that hasn't been made public yet. In any case, a big win for NATO, a big L for Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/world/europe/finland-sweden-nato-membership.html

It's amazing how much demand continues around the world for F-16s.  I believe the first F-16 was deployed sometime around 1980.  There have been many upgrades and variants but still it is an aging platform.

Some years ago Lockheed was refurbishing some old F-16s for Israel.  They asked for bids on an electronic assembly because the original manufacturer had gone out of business.  I wasn't interested.  It was a one-time special project; the product would have to be reverse engineered and the components tooled-up with no repeat business.  We no bid. 

Apparently all the other suppliers also no bid.  Lockheed kept hounding us for a bid.  Finally we bid a ridiculously high price and they accepted immediately.  They didn't even try to talk down the price.  I'm sure this is not the only example of supply chain issues with aging F-16s to keep operational.

I haven't been following the F-35 lately.  The last I checked it was headed for failure; nightmare to maintain; software not completely debugged.   My guess is the military may decide to cut its losses at some point and start from scratch on a completely new, cost-effective design.  I'm too lazy to look up the latest status of F-35s.

---