How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[steve_bank]

I am in my shorts means I am in my underwear.

Wearing shorts means wearing short pants.

The lack of culture and nuancein the English speaking world outside the USA is astounding.

 

[steve_bank]

We only see Putin speaking publicly.

He is an autocrat, but he still has to deal with hardliners in the military and politics. His words on nukes may be reflecting internal debate on using nukes.

 

[bilby]

I am in my shorts means I am in my underwear.

Wearing shorts means wearing short pants.

The lack of culture and nuancein the English speaking world outside the USA is astounding.

Eat my shorts.

 

[Jayjay]

But Russia can't maintain it's artillery. The more they shoot their guns the less accurate they become. Having guns that can't put shells on target doesn't do much other than eat logistics.

The attrition is true of any artillery. Including Ukraine's. But Russia has massively more artillery pieces and shells. Ukraine's advantage is that the western weapons are somewhat more accurate and longer range, but not much. Russia is also rumoured to be investing heavily on their own versions of higher accuracy rockets.

Ukraine has access to maintenance. Russia does not have a meaningful ability to maintain their artillery.

Russia is a major industrialized country. Of course they have the ability to maintain their artillery, and manufacture new artillery pieces. Same goes for Ukraine for barrels and such, but the most advanced western weaponry need to be shipped out of the country for maintenance probably, leading to longer delays.

Plus, Russia can hit Ukrainian facilities anytime, but Ukraine can't do it to Russia (except rarely when they get lucky), and Russia is in full-on war economy mode, while Ukraine's backers aren't.

And they do not have a meaningful ability to build high precision weapons of any type at this point--too hard to get the parts.

Not necessarily. Russia has for years been switching to using commercial, off-the-shelf parts for it military equipment to cut costs:



Using standardized, civilian parts means they can be smuggled into the country easily than military-grade hardware. Some time ago Russians got caught stealing speed cameras in Sweden to be used in Ukraine, for example. I don't think any sanctions regime can block Russia from getting these components through friendly nations. China is probably able to sell them the components they need too.

Can Russia ramp up its production of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles or high-accuracy rocket shells to the level they need to completely crush Ukraine? Probably not. But HIMARS system shows that even a few very accurate strikes can do a lot of damage. Again, Russia is in full-on war production mode and will do whatever it takes to try to bridge the gap between them and NATO.

The longer the war goes on, the stronger Russia is getting in terms of equipment and even manpower... unless its economy completely implodes, but that could take a very long time. Which is why the west is stupid for thinking that they can win at the current pace.

 

[Harry Bosch]

But Russia can't maintain it's artillery. The more they shoot their guns the less accurate they become. Having guns that can't put shells on target doesn't do much other than eat logistics.

The attrition is true of any artillery. Including Ukraine's. But Russia has massively more artillery pieces and shells. Ukraine's advantage is that the western weapons are somewhat more accurate and longer range, but not much. Russia is also rumoured to be investing heavily on their own versions of higher accuracy rockets.

Ukraine has access to maintenance. Russia does not have a meaningful ability to maintain their artillery.

Russia is a major industrialized country. Of course they have the ability to maintain their artillery, and manufacture new artillery pieces. Same goes for Ukraine for barrels and such, but the most advanced western weaponry need to be shipped out of the country for maintenance probably, leading to longer delays.

Plus, Russia can hit Ukrainian facilities anytime, but Ukraine can't do it to Russia (except rarely when they get lucky), and Russia is in full-on war economy mode, while Ukraine's backers aren't.

And they do not have a meaningful ability to build high precision weapons of any type at this point--too hard to get the parts.

Not necessarily. Russia has for years been switching to using commercial, off-the-shelf parts for it military equipment to cut costs:



Using standardized, civilian parts means they can be smuggled into the country easily than military-grade hardware. Some time ago Russians got caught stealing speed cameras in Sweden to be used in Ukraine, for example. I don't think any sanctions regime can block Russia from getting these components through friendly nations. China is probably able to sell them the components they need too.

Can Russia ramp up its production of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles or high-accuracy rocket shells to the level they need to completely crush Ukraine? Probably not. But HIMARS system shows that even a few very accurate strikes can do a lot of damage. Again, Russia is in full-on war production mode and will do whatever it takes to try to bridge the gap between them and NATO.

The longer the war goes on, the stronger Russia is getting in terms of equipment and even manpower... unless its economy completely implodes, but that could take a very long time. Which is why the west is stupid for thinking that they can win at the current pace.

Jay: you make a lot of great points. However, if what you say is true. Why is Putler pushing for "negotiated truce"? While Ukraine is telling the world that it wants to push on? Ukrainians are much closer to the ground (so to speak) and have far more at stake; and yet they want to continue the war until the Russians return home. If they thought they were losing, I'm sure they would agree to short term peace terms that Putler is pushing.

 

[Jayjay]

But Russia can't maintain it's artillery. The more they shoot their guns the less accurate they become. Having guns that can't put shells on target doesn't do much other than eat logistics.

The attrition is true of any artillery. Including Ukraine's. But Russia has massively more artillery pieces and shells. Ukraine's advantage is that the western weapons are somewhat more accurate and longer range, but not much. Russia is also rumoured to be investing heavily on their own versions of higher accuracy rockets.

Ukraine has access to maintenance. Russia does not have a meaningful ability to maintain their artillery.

Russia is a major industrialized country. Of course they have the ability to maintain their artillery, and manufacture new artillery pieces. Same goes for Ukraine for barrels and such, but the most advanced western weaponry need to be shipped out of the country for maintenance probably, leading to longer delays.

Plus, Russia can hit Ukrainian facilities anytime, but Ukraine can't do it to Russia (except rarely when they get lucky), and Russia is in full-on war economy mode, while Ukraine's backers aren't.

And they do not have a meaningful ability to build high precision weapons of any type at this point--too hard to get the parts.

Not necessarily. Russia has for years been switching to using commercial, off-the-shelf parts for it military equipment to cut costs:



Using standardized, civilian parts means they can be smuggled into the country easily than military-grade hardware. Some time ago Russians got caught stealing speed cameras in Sweden to be used in Ukraine, for example. I don't think any sanctions regime can block Russia from getting these components through friendly nations. China is probably able to sell them the components they need too.

Can Russia ramp up its production of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles or high-accuracy rocket shells to the level they need to completely crush Ukraine? Probably not. But HIMARS system shows that even a few very accurate strikes can do a lot of damage. Again, Russia is in full-on war production mode and will do whatever it takes to try to bridge the gap between them and NATO.

The longer the war goes on, the stronger Russia is getting in terms of equipment and even manpower... unless its economy completely implodes, but that could take a very long time. Which is why the west is stupid for thinking that they can win at the current pace.

Jay: you make a lot of great points. However, if what you say is true. Why is Putler pushing for "negotiated truce"? While Ukraine is telling the world that it wants to push on? Ukrainians are much closer to the ground (so to speak) and have far more at stake; and yet they want to continue the war until the Russians return home. If they thought they were losing, I'm sure they would agree to short term peace terms that Putler is pushing.

Giving up one's land is hard to stomach.

Reasons are also political. The democratically elected leaders of Ukraine can't go against what the people want, and the idea of negotiating for peace and ceding territory is out of the question for them. At the same time, the people don't have full knowledge of how hopeless the fight is, because Ukraine's propaganda tries to keep up hope and thus puts a positive spin on the war effort. I don't see any other way for them than to stay the course until it becomes obvious that they can't get their land back anymore. Giving up now would leave everyone second-guessing the possible outcome, and whether it was a wise decision, and if forced from abroad, it'll sour Ukraine's people to the west for a long time.

Hey, maybe the west will not crumble. Maybe Russia is in a worse shape than it appears to be (which would be quite a feat, given how bad shape it appears to be).

 

[Copernicus]

Khrystyna Morozova explains how people are coping with Russian attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure: (3 minute video begins with 15 second ad from CNN)

 

[Jayjay]

Ukraine needs more weapons, plain and simple. Here's what they mostly have to work with (I recommend reading the whole thread):



Particularly liked this comment:

modern warfare is four guys firing a four decades old SPG and four guys filming it

 

[Patooka]

Ukraine needs more weapons, plain and simple. Here's what they mostly have to work with (I recommend reading the whole thread):



Particularly liked this comment:

modern warfare is four guys firing a four decades old SPG and four guys filming it

That comment left out some pretty important context. Ukraine is getting supplied with old shit. That is true. Russia is outfitting their soldiers with even older shit, which puts Ukraine out in front when it comes to logistics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am in my shorts means I am in my underwear.

Wearing shorts means wearing short pants.

The lack of culture and nuancein the English speaking world outside the USA is astounding.

Meanings vary by location.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And they do not have a meaningful ability to build high precision weapons of any type at this point--too hard to get the parts.

Not necessarily. Russia has for years been switching to using commercial, off-the-shelf parts for it military equipment to cut costs:



Using standardized, civilian parts means they can be smuggled into the country easily than military-grade hardware. Some time ago Russians got caught stealing speed cameras in Sweden to be used in Ukraine, for example. I don't think any sanctions regime can block Russia from getting these components through friendly nations. China is probably able to sell them the components they need too.

Can Russia ramp up its production of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles or high-accuracy rocket shells to the level they need to completely crush Ukraine? Probably not. But HIMARS system shows that even a few very accurate strikes can do a lot of damage. Again, Russia is in full-on war production mode and will do whatever it takes to try to bridge the gap between them and NATO.

The longer the war goes on, the stronger Russia is getting in terms of equipment and even manpower... unless its economy completely implodes, but that could take a very long time. Which is why the west is stupid for thinking that they can win at the current pace.

Agreed--they're using civilian parts for a lot of things. That's not going to produce the kind of precision that proper military parts do. And little things like that civilian GPS receiver cutting out on the ballistic missile because it doesn't like the numbers it's producing. Look at the recent amateur Mesos launch--the GPS cuts out for much of the second stage burn because of this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Giving up one's land is hard to stomach.

Reasons are also political. The democratically elected leaders of Ukraine can't go against what the people want, and the idea of negotiating for peace and ceding territory is out of the question for them. At the same time, the people don't have full knowledge of how hopeless the fight is, because Ukraine's propaganda tries to keep up hope and thus puts a positive spin on the war effort. I don't see any other way for them than to stay the course until it becomes obvious that they can't get their land back anymore. Giving up now would leave everyone second-guessing the possible outcome, and whether it was a wise decision, and if forced from abroad, it'll sour Ukraine's people to the west for a long time.

Hey, maybe the west will not crumble. Maybe Russia is in a worse shape than it appears to be (which would be quite a feat, given how bad shape it appears to be).

Giving up land just ensures the war continues later. Thus it's not an option.

 

[bilby]

And they do not have a meaningful ability to build high precision weapons of any type at this point--too hard to get the parts.

Not necessarily. Russia has for years been switching to using commercial, off-the-shelf parts for it military equipment to cut costs:



Using standardized, civilian parts means they can be smuggled into the country easily than military-grade hardware. Some time ago Russians got caught stealing speed cameras in Sweden to be used in Ukraine, for example. I don't think any sanctions regime can block Russia from getting these components through friendly nations. China is probably able to sell them the components they need too.

Can Russia ramp up its production of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles or high-accuracy rocket shells to the level they need to completely crush Ukraine? Probably not. But HIMARS system shows that even a few very accurate strikes can do a lot of damage. Again, Russia is in full-on war production mode and will do whatever it takes to try to bridge the gap between them and NATO.

The longer the war goes on, the stronger Russia is getting in terms of equipment and even manpower... unless its economy completely implodes, but that could take a very long time. Which is why the west is stupid for thinking that they can win at the current pace.

Agreed--they're using civilian parts for a lot of things. That's not going to produce the kind of precision that proper military parts do. And little things like that civilian GPS receiver cutting out on the ballistic missile because it doesn't like the numbers it's producing. Look at the recent amateur Mesos launch--the GPS cuts out for much of the second stage burn because of this.

Civilian GPS is deliberately degraded vs the military version, to an extent controlled by the Pentagon. Military systems with access to the details of the introduced errors, can subtract those errors to get back to the maximum possible accuracy.

This is one of the reasons why the EU wants to launch their own positioning system that will be dependable to a degree controlled in Brussels, not Arlington.

I would be rather surprised if the US weren't including a degradation of GPS accuracy in the region, and supply of the restoration data, as part of their support to Ukraine. It's a lot cheaper than HIMARS, and it would seriously stuff up any Russian systems that use GPS.

 

[TV and credit cards]

From the Sunday Times:

The Pentagon has given a tacit endorsement of Ukraine’s long-range attacks on targets inside Russia after President Putin’s multiple missile strikes against Kyiv’s critical infrastructure.
To continue reading, please send me £1.

Military targets within Russian are legitimate targets in accordance with international law. Got a problem with that, Vlad?

Another point to note regarding Russia using COTS electronics to build their military systems is that they are likely being flooded with rejected components that companies cannot send to legitimate contracted customers. Think they just throw those rejects away? Hell no. They warehouse them and sell them to sanctioned shithole countries who have to take what they can get. Maybe they work, maybe they don't. But they didn't pass QA.

Regarding the GPS signals, I know the military uses a dual frequency to compensate for signal loss and an additional encoded packet of info to better increase accuracy in the horizontal plane.

 

[steve_bank]

Current supply chain issues aside, anyone with a credit card can go online globally and buy industrial temperature range electronics. There are export bans but I doubt it is possible to keep electronics out of countries like Iran.

Ukrainians can go to Poland or any EU country and buy parts from multiple distributors.

You can buy cheap GPS boards that can be wired to a micro controller. You ondn't even have to do much if any circuit design. Just wire up COTS modules and code the processor. It has been that way for a long time.

If you look inside the Iranian drones you will probably find common electronics including processors.

Hobbyists were making RPV planes and helicopters with video camersa since the early 90s.

 

[steve_bank]

I am in my shorts means I am in my underwear.

Wearing shorts means wearing short pants.

The lack of culture and nuancein the English speaking world outside the USA is astounding.

Meanings vary by location.

So does humor.

 

[TV and credit cards]

More on Ukrainian Turnabout.

I like these passages. We would have every reason to believe that Russia's ability to defend its own military infrastructure is no better than its ability to execute an attack on its neighbor.
Not to target civilians but the psychological effect on civilians and their ire being directed toward the deluded fool who started this would be huge.

If Ukraine can muster the industrial stamina, parts and expertise to produce multiple UAVs quickly and employ them in significant numbers, it could change the dynamic of the war.

Russia, with its indefensibly huge landmass filled with vulnerable targets, would be confronted with difficult choices.

“Because of these attacks, Russia now faces the same dilemma Ukraine faces, which is that they have to decide with limited air defense resources,” said Marcel Plichta, a former analyst with the U.S. Department of Defense.

“Should they all be up at the front to shoot down Ukrainian drones and threaten Ukrainian aircraft or should they start to be placed in the rear to safeguard bases or oil installations? And there are many of both in range of these drones.”

The Russian military has demonstrated that its capabilities on paper don’t reflect reality thanks to stolen, outdated, mishandled or poorly maintained equipment. There’s no reason to believe that its air defenses will be any different, according to Alina Frolova, another expert with the Center for Defense Strategies.

"As this war showed, perceptions of Russian capabilities are exaggerated. It's unlikely that they seriously prepared for a traditional war at this level and seriously examined the threat of attacks in their own territory," she said.

Frolova added that the Russians would have to devote lots of attention and resources to safeguarding their strategic assets, for example moving their bombers out of harm’s way. She compared it to how Russia was forced to move aircraft out of Crimea after heavy Ukrainian strikes on the airbases there.

“This changes the entire configuration of their possibilities,” she said. “This substantially affects how they plan operations, splits the attention of their defenses and drains their resources. It’s also a psychological factor.”

Bendett added that the ensuing “round-the-clock stressful situation” could lead to instability in the ranks.

“It’s gonna demonstrate to them that despite all their preparation and restructuring they are vulnerable,” he said. “This may lead to high-profile reshuffling within the ministry of defense, if Ukraine demonstrates it can strike multiple targets at once and Russia’s air defenses are not working or not working properly. It may lead to replacements or other solutions, it may require the mobilization of the civilian population to watch the sky.”

Will we give Ukraine the longer range armament it seeks or enough of the components necessary to build their own? It would be a sort of underground manufacturing both within and external to Ukraine.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Personally, at this point anyway, I would not strike any further into Putinstan than necessary to eject the rashists from Ukraine. I would not carry out spite attacks. Maybe it's fifty miles from the border, I don't know, that's something that has to be discussed and determined. But it certainly seems like we are enabling and encouraging Russian Hitler to attack anywhere he wants with impunity. We're telling him we're afraid. That position will get you bombed into oblivion.

 

[bilby]

the psychological effect on civilians and their ire being directed toward the deluded fool who started this would be huge.

History tells us that civilians almost never direct their ire at their own leaders, even when it's obvious that those leaders are the ones responsible for their woes.

This effect is so powerful that it's become fairly common for despots to attack (or fail to competently defend) their own civilians, in order to consolidate their power - Putin already did this with the "Chechen" attack on a Moscow theatre; And Hitler notoriously did it with the Reichstag fire.

 

[Tigers!]

The lack of culture and nuance in the English speaking world outside inside the USA is astounding.

FIFY