Russia/Ukraine conflict

[nativewolf]

The US won't export Abrams with the uranium armor and that's what is in storage. I doubt the US is going to change that policy.

There is a point where Ukraine is going to be pilot limited and training on the F-16 is going to take time. Ground crews need to be trained too, and that's a longer course than the pilot training. Even Ukraine thinks it will take 6 months minimum:
Ukraine says pilots would need six months for F-16 combat training

Ukraine probably had around 100 active fixed wing combat pilots at the start of the war. Their air force was not huge
Ukrainian Air Force - Wikipedia

They could probably scrounge some up from retirement and press people into service with related skills, but their pool of trained pilots is limited.

The US has about 1100 Patriot launchers, but only about 10,000 missiles. If Ukraine has a lot of launchers and are using them, they could deplete the stockpile pretty quickly.

The US does have a large stockpile of 155mm cluster munitions that will probably never get used again and ATACMS has been discussed at length. I think both of those could be delivered to Ukraine fairly quickly if need be. The US could also step up Bradley deliveries. Other weapons that could be delivered are US anti-entrenchment weapons. There is an array of weapons used by engineers to clear fortifications. A good stock of those would help Ukraine a lot in their coming offensives.



That is the tightrope Beijing has been walking throughout this war. China makes a lot of money from the US and Europe. If those western countries start switching to other suppliers China's economy will be in trouble.

In Russia Putin ensured that some of the wealth from raw resource sales trickled down to the population. Enough to make them feel their lot was improving, but the bulk of the wealth was stolen.

China's CCP has a sort of pact with the people that if they stay in power, the people can have the opportunity to get wealthier. A lot more Chinese wealth flows down to the common people than in Russia. China has experienced some instability of late because the flow has slowed down due to the economy maturing. If the west quits buying Chinese goods, that tightening will get worse and it could topple the regime. They need the west to keep the plates spinning.

Economically Russia is a treasure trove of resources they need for industry, but they are a tiny customer compared to the west. Russia has a population of 145 million with a much larger poor population than most western countries. There is very little market for Chinese consumer goods in Russia compared to the US with more than twice the population or the EU with an even bigger population. Both economies have large middle classes buying lots of consumer goods.



If the Russians allow it. Getting their hands on the Russian aircraft industry would help China with engine technology. That's the one area where China has struggled. Chinese aircraft designs aren't bad, but they have only just started domestic production of modern engines.

I think the focus on MBT is a bit overdone, we do have thousands of Stryker and Bradleys which could be sent immediately. Frankly, they'd be quite effective with 1000 APCs with a core fleet of MBTs. They need rapid mobility and ability to engage at night and communicate between units. Western APCs would do all of that. In particular, Sweden could send more than the 50 very capable Type 90 IFV, that's a heckuva vehicle for Ukraine.

 

[nativewolf]

"The United Kingdom will be the first country to provide Ukraine with longer-range weapons, [the British PM] says."



I have no idea what Sunak is talking about, and regrettably there is a history of UK prime ministers saying stuff that it plain wrong.

The UK's long range weapon inventorys are of three types:
- vessel launched, with the real long-range stuff originating in submarines;
- aircraft launched;
- plus perhaps ATACMS from MLRS.

I can't conceive of a situation where UK might send ATACMS (if we actually have any yet) without the USA also doing so. The vessel launched stuff doesn't really fit the description. And the aircraft launched stuff is either things the Ukraine already has, or things that it would be unlikely to pass to Ukraine and/or which Ukraine can't actually use at the moment.

So my best guess is that Sunak is mis-speaking and really referencing US supply of GLSDB, so not from UK at all. But perhaps I'm missing something; or perhaps they are bigging up something that is not really that significant as being more than it is (e.g. Sea Skua type stuff, or old Harpoons converted for land launch, or etc).

Funny that it was reported again today. I was wondering what long range weapon the UK had up its sleeve and knew we could count on you to decipher

 

[BioSehnsucht]

I was wondering why the intercept rate of missiles fired into Ukraine seemed lower over the past few days. Perhaps this has something to do with it. Hopefully, smart minds will find a solution.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1627476155417743360

Low tech and amusing solution: A bunch of really tall chain link fences across the river beds and such. You'd have to have multiple layers spread apart as probably each missile will knock down a layer.

High tech and probably more effective approach: CIWS weapons systems in these areas, then give them some disguised AA cover in the surrounding areas since they'll be targets (CIWS to be anti-missiles and also bait for Russian air force to attack)

 

[voyager]

... Hmm. So no one fearful for the future of the many investments in car plants in China?

 

[RobStark]

Fog of War ?

7 hrs ago

6 hrs ago

 

[Artful Dodger]

I was wondering the same.

What is Russia's Wagner Group of mercenaries in Ukraine? dated January 23, 2023:

Yeah that 50K figure from Jan 2022 was before the 30-odd-K prisoners were *ahem* recruited. That group seems to have done most of the heavy lifting.

 

[wdolson]

Thought this was a good article. Here are a few salient quotes,


“There is nothing that any democratic Ukrainian government could offer, nor that the West would accept, that will convince Russia to stop its renewed mobilisation and rearmament activities. Even a negotiated ceasefire will only last until Russia feels ready to go back on the offensive. However the fighting eventually ends, Ukraine will continue to need western support to prevent a second Russian invasion six months down the line once the Russian army has had time to recover, but before Ukraine has had a chance to rebuild and arm its forces with western equipment and new training practices.”

If there is a ceasefire, both sides will be scrambling to rearm. The Ukrainians will be getting western gear that is modern or one generation old. Russia's ability to build a lot of new equipment is limited. They can refurbish a lot of older equipment given time. The new equipment they are building lack a lot of modern gear because they can't get the parts.

Russia has a gutted training system left after they sent all their trainers to the war. Their ability to train new troops is limited. They have lost a lot of officers and have never had much of an NCO corps. Their leadership was always poor, but it's much worse than it was a year ago with no quick way to rebuild.

On the other hand even if the west quits training Ukrainians, they will spend the cease fire training their people and fortifying their borders and positions.

Russia would be quite capable of making another mess in Ukraine, but they would do no better in phase 2 of the war.

”Russia can be beaten on the battlefield this year, and deterred from future aggression, but only if Europe stops underestimating Russian resolve; accepts that it is in a long-term military contest with an aggressive and determined enemy; and invests now in industrial capacity and support to Ukraine at the scale that the stakes demand. “

This article seems to summarize well what I’ve seen in bits and pieces from articles cited in this thread and others. It seems there is still disagreement on what weapon systems to provide Ukraine with and how to deal with things that might happen if/when Russia is pushed out of Ukraine. I would guess those scenarios are all being gamed out. There are also considerations about China’s involvement being noted in articles. Besides those things noted in the articles I saw cited elsewhere in this thread, I saw an interesting point made elsewhere that China would prefer the war to be drawn out, in order to further deplete US stockpiles and keep the US pre-occupied.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1627256786989330433

Russia will continue to keep trying to make progress in Ukraine much like Wiley E Coyote until they are unable to continue. This may be when a generation of young men are all dead, the economy completely implodes, and/or revolt brings down the government or forces them to pull back to deal with the revolt.

The worse the war goes for Russia, the more unstable things will get at home. If the Ukrainians are able to wrestle more territory from Russia it will become harder and harder for Moscow to explain it away. They have been selling that they planned the retreat in the north, losing Kharkhiv oblast was no big deal, and Kherson was really a win because they managed to pull out most of their forces. But the more they lose the harder it is to explain away.

I think the focus on MBT is a bit overdone, we do have thousands of Stryker and Bradleys which could be sent immediately. Frankly, they'd be quite effective with 1000 APCs with a core fleet of MBTs. They need rapid mobility and ability to engage at night and communicate between units. Western APCs would do all of that. In particular, Sweden could send more than the 50 very capable Type 90 IFV, that's a heckuva vehicle for Ukraine.

I agree. Bradleys usually carry a couple of anti-tank missiles and make good tank destroyers. Russian tank doctrine is so poor that good tank destroyers would make short work of Russian armor.

A highly mobile vehicle with a good sized gun will be good on offense for reducing fortified positions. The AMX can fill that role to a large degree. So can Leopard Is. The Ukrainians don't need many state of the art tanks, they basically need assault guns. Assault guns were a stop gap weapon in WW II that utilized obsolete tank chassis with fairly large caliber guns without turrets. They were heavily used in the assault role to take out fortifications.

They also were used sometimes in the anti-tank role, but their main job was attacking infantry positions. The US and Commonwealth used tanks and tank destroyers for this role, but assault guns were very common in the German and Russian armies.

Yeah that 50K figure from Jan 2022 was before the 30-odd-K prisoners were *ahem* recruited. That group seems to have done most of the heavy lifting.

Most of the recruited 30K are dead. I read somewhere that only a handful survived long enough to get discharged. I suspect Wagner has taken more than 50K casualties if the prisoners are taken into account.

 

[petit_bateau]

Anti-ship missiles that were intended to be launched from ships have already been adapted for ground launch. Maybe the MoD has come up with an easy modification for some old ship missiles so they can be launched as surface to surface missiles? Or he could be going on about something that isn't real. Hard to say.

It is possible that Sunak's statement is a combination of political sophistry and plain stupidity. He might be referring to supply of APKWS and thinking "better rockets" which is of course true to an extent; and thinking that they are a BAe thing so must be UK, which is largely wrong. Whatever it is I hope it is something real and useful and is provided in suitable quantities fairly soon.

---

On the supply of APKWS these would be very helpful if they could be integrated onto Ukraine tac-air Su25 Frogfoot and their various helos. At the moment they are still active using unguided rockets in lofted delivery, which is massively inaccurate. So anything that can improve that would be appreciated I am sure. Anything that can improve the effectiveness of Ulraine tac-air will be very useful in improving the success probability of any deep armoured thrusts that Ukraine tries in due course. They are going to have to do thrusts of 100-150km in order to reach the coast and/or borders, and if the thrust width is only (!) 50km at root then it will be a vulnerable axis to place Ukraine artillery along, hence need for good tac-air. I'm sure they'll try flying, however risky, so let's at least give them the best tools for the job. I see that the APKWS are already authorised for supply in anti-drone use so getting them onto aircraft with enough laser designators to feed them would be a good thing.

Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System - Wikipedia

===

On the matter of the Russian aviation industry, or any of Russia in the post-conflict, really I don't think they are going to have a choice to remain fully autonomous. Russia is simply going to be a failed state in both military and economic terms after this. You've seen my adoption S-curves for EVs - the buyers for oil & gas are literally going extinct over the next ten years. (I'm working on an imprved analysis for the wider energy adoption curves, but all my previous ones have come to the same conclusion). So Russia is going to have a choice:
- client state of China, with extra benefits; or
- implosion and Balkanisation; or
- move towards West.
The first two are consistent with remaining controlled by similar political cadres to those currently in place. The third requires huge change and so is least likely. China's main concern is (imho) figuring out how to best take control of the outcome in a manner that least exposes them to downside risk.

 

[RobStark]

Biden has made a surprise visit to Kyiv right now.

 

[bkp_duke]

Biden has made a surprise visit to Kyiv right now.

Oh, the Kremlin is going to be fuming about this one.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

Regarding Prigozhin. Allegedly...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1627623132528779264

 

[JRP3]

Some Russians don't think they can win. Dead body warning at 5:20, after they say they won't show bodies, they show bodies for a second.

 

[JRP3]

During their talks inside the presidential palace, Biden laid out his rationale for visiting the Ukrainian capital as the war enters a second year.

“I thought it was critical that there not be any doubt, none whatsoever, about US support for Ukraine in the war,” Biden said.
“The Ukrainian people have stepped up in a way that few people ever have in the past,” he added.
Biden emphasized there was broad, bipartisan support in Washington for the Ukrainian cause.
“For all the disagreement we have in our Congress on some issues, there is significant agreement on support for Ukraine,” he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/20/politics/biden-ukraine-zelensky-visit-one-year-war-anniversary-intl-hnk/index.html

 

[petit_bateau]

Re the long range weapons issue:

There are a lot of rumours flying around in UK about giving Ukraine a UK/French cruise missile called Storm Shadow/SCALP, somewhat analagous to Tomahawk. I had previously discounted this but the amount of buzz in the rumour network means it may be genuine. It has been used against targets in Syria so any extra intel value to the Russians arising from use would be minimal. The UK only has the air-launch version so either that would need integrating onto the Ukraine aircraft, or the UK would need to supply a 'land' version of the naval system. It is possible that a limited range 'export' version might be supplied. The warhead has an anti-bunker capability so it could also reasonably be used against significant strategic infrastructure targets. To be honest I figured that this would be too 'much' weapon to give Ukraine and so had discounted it. For example Storm Shadow range is ordinarily 350-miles versus 190-miles for ATACMS; and warhead of 450kg (990lb) versus 230kg (500lb). But with all the rumours out there one can't be sure.

Storm Shadow - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[iPlug]

The new prime minister of Moldova said that Russian troops should leave Transnistria.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1627446189883899907

 

[nativewolf]

Maybe Romania could assist the new PM of Moldova.

 

[nativewolf]

Re the long range weapons issue:

There are a lot of rumours flying around in UK about giving Ukraine a UK/French cruise missile called Storm Shadow/SCALP, somewhat analagous to Tomahawk. I had previously discounted this but the amount of buzz in the rumour network means it may be genuine. It has been used against targets in Syria so any extra intel value to the Russians arising from use would be minimal. The UK only has the air-launch version so either that would need integrating onto the Ukraine aircraft, or the UK would need to supply a 'land' version of the naval system. It is possible that a limited range 'export' version might be supplied. The warhead has an anti-bunker capability so it could also reasonably be used against significant strategic infrastructure targets. To be honest I figured that this would be too 'much' weapon to give Ukraine and so had discounted it. For example Storm Shadow range is ordinarily 350-miles versus 190-miles for ATACMS; and warhead of 450kg (990lb) versus 230kg (500lb). But with all the rumours out there one can't be sure.

Storm Shadow - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well I keep seeing new rumors as well, will be interesting to watch this develop.

 

[iPlug]

Darth Putin is hilarious:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1627713027284824064

 

[iPlug]

Japan with big infusion:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1627686340279115777

 

[Doggydogworld]

That is the tightrope Beijing has been walking throughout this war. China makes a lot of money from the US and Europe. If those western countries start switching to other suppliers China's economy will be in trouble.

....A lot more Chinese wealth flows down to the common people than in Russia. China has experienced some instability of late because the flow has slowed down due to the economy maturing. If the west quits buying Chinese goods, that tightening will get worse and it could topple the regime.

You need to think this through better. If China stops sending goods to the west in exchange for bits of paper, will Chinese consumers have:
A. more goods to consume themselves, or
B. fewer goods to consume themselves?

Not a hard question. Of course China needs some exports to fund their oil and food and raw materials imports, but they get enough hard currency selling to non-western countries for that. And they're working on their oil dependency via EV mandates, so that part isn't a long term problem.

There would be disruptions, of course, as factories re-align their output toward domestic tastes. And they'd have to dial back some of their overseas investment programs, which would ding Xi's global strategic ambitions. But it'd be wonderful for China's consumers.