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

[Jayjay]

Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates say that time is on Russia's side and US & NATO must deliver more aid, and faster:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/07/condoleezza-rice-robert-gates-ukraine-repel-russia/

The Wapo article above is behind a paywall, but it seems it's published elsewhere for free:

Time is not on Ukraine’s side

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue. Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukra…

www.almendron.com

Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. (...) NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Take the Patriot system for example. It takes two months to train the Ukrainian crew, and the training hasn't even started yet (unless it's done secretly). The west should have started the training way back in September when it was obvious that it'll eventually be necessary anyway.

Same with armor. Only now, when the Ukrainian defensive line is crumbling, and Russia is readying another wave of mobilization, are the US and NATO even promising a few hundred IFVs. These vehicles could have been used to great effect last month instead of next summer.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates say that time is on Russia's side and US & NATO must deliver more aid, and faster:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/07/condoleezza-rice-robert-gates-ukraine-repel-russia/

The Wapo article above is behind a paywall, but it seems it's published elsewhere for free:

Time is not on Ukraine’s side

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue. Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukra…

www.almendron.com

Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. (...) NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Take the Patriot system for example. It takes two months to train the Ukrainian crew, and the training hasn't even started yet (unless it's done secretly). The west should have started the training way back in September when it was obvious that it'll eventually be necessary anyway.

Same with armor. Only now, when the Ukrainian defensive line is crumbling, and Russia is readying another wave of mobilization, are the US and NATO even promising a few hundred IFVs. These vehicles could have been used to great effect last month instead of next summer.

I totally agree. We have to give all aid that Ukraine needs. Send them A-10s (we've mothballed them anyway). Send them whatever they need to defend themselves. Send it now. If we don't, and Ukraine loses, the Russian war on eastern Europe will continue for years. We need to stop Russian imperialism now. A negotiated peace with Russia will reward their imperialism, allow them to rearm, then invade again.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There's still a few more hours of the non-existent "ceasefire". I'm going to make a prediction that Russia will strike immediately after midnight against civilian targets, just like it did only a few hours before the "ceasefire" started.

Why are you so fixated on that? It was a joke but not for reasons you mentioned.

I don't think that Putler is taking it as a joke:

 

[Jayjay]

I totally agree. We have to give all aid that Ukraine needs. Send them A-10s (we've mothballed them anyway). Send them whatever they need to defend themselves. Send it now. If we don't, and Ukraine loses, the Russian war on eastern Europe will continue for years. We need to stop Russian imperialism now. A negotiated peace with Russia will reward their imperialism, allow them to rearm, then invade again.

Would A-10 be useful for Ukraine? I'd imagine they'd get shot down before they can get close enough to "brrrrt".

 

[Harry Bosch]

I totally agree. We have to give all aid that Ukraine needs. Send them A-10s (we've mothballed them anyway). Send them whatever they need to defend themselves. Send it now. If we don't, and Ukraine loses, the Russian war on eastern Europe will continue for years. We need to stop Russian imperialism now. A negotiated peace with Russia will reward their imperialism, allow them to rearm, then invade again.

Would A-10 be useful for Ukraine? I'd imagine they'd get shot down before they can get close enough to "brrrrt".

They are very hard to "shoot down". They fly very fast, very low, just above the trees. They are awesome to watch! At this point, anything that Ukraine says they need we should send to them.

 

[ZiprHead]

I totally agree. We have to give all aid that Ukraine needs. Send them A-10s (we've mothballed them anyway). Send them whatever they need to defend themselves. Send it now. If we don't, and Ukraine loses, the Russian war on eastern Europe will continue for years. We need to stop Russian imperialism now. A negotiated peace with Russia will reward their imperialism, allow them to rearm, then invade again.

Would A-10 be useful for Ukraine? I'd imagine they'd get shot down before they can get close enough to "brrrrt".

They are very hard to "shoot down". They fly very fast, very low, just above the trees. They are awesome to watch! At this point, anything that Ukraine says they need we should send to them.

The National Guard used our local airport for short take-off/landing exercises in the A-10s so I saw them in use quite often. They're pretty cool planes. Always in pairs. I understand they were phased out due to the single seat cockpit design requiring the pilot to have to do both targeting/weapons control and fly the plane at the same time.

If I win the Megamillions maybe I'll pick one up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I totally agree. We have to give all aid that Ukraine needs. Send them A-10s (we've mothballed them anyway). Send them whatever they need to defend themselves. Send it now. If we don't, and Ukraine loses, the Russian war on eastern Europe will continue for years. We need to stop Russian imperialism now. A negotiated peace with Russia will reward their imperialism, allow them to rearm, then invade again.

Would A-10 be useful for Ukraine? I'd imagine they'd get shot down before they can get close enough to "brrrrt".

Yeah, that's why they aren't wanted. They're deadly tank killers but can't survive in a modern MANPAD environment. They'll hit their target but likely not get away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I totally agree. We have to give all aid that Ukraine needs. Send them A-10s (we've mothballed them anyway). Send them whatever they need to defend themselves. Send it now. If we don't, and Ukraine loses, the Russian war on eastern Europe will continue for years. We need to stop Russian imperialism now. A negotiated peace with Russia will reward their imperialism, allow them to rearm, then invade again.

Would A-10 be useful for Ukraine? I'd imagine they'd get shot down before they can get close enough to "brrrrt".

They are very hard to "shoot down". They fly very fast, very low, just above the trees. They are awesome to watch! At this point, anything that Ukraine says they need we should send to them.

They're very hard to hit by area defenses but if your target has MANPADS you're likely to eat one as you leave your target.

 

[Copernicus]

Apparently, a HIMARS strike on a Russian ammunition dump in occupied Donetsk killed and wounded hundreds of Russian soldiers, mostly conscripts. The Russian press is blaming this on the stupidity of locating a barracks near an ammunition dump that was known to be within range of Ukrainian missiles. More Russian families lose their sons to satisfy Putin's lust for conquest.

Anger in Russia as scores of troops killed in one of war's deadliest strikes​

Russia has finally retaliated for the New Years strike that killed and wounded hundreds of Russian conscripts in Donetsk. It announced a devastating strike on two temporary bases housing 1300 Ukrainian troops, killing at least 600 of them. So there. They killed even more Ukrainians in retaliation. That'll teach the Ukrainians a lesson.

Here is a report from the scene of the devastating tragedy:

Ukraine school rejects Russian claim of troops killed there​

Associated Press reporters visiting the scene in sunny weather Monday saw a four-story concrete building with most of its windows blown out. Inside, locals were cleaning up debris, sweeping up broken glass and hurling broken furniture out into a missile crater below.

A separate, six-story school building was largely undamaged. There were neither signs of a Ukrainian military presence nor any casualties.

Yana Pristupa, the school’s deputy director, scoffed at Moscow’s claims of hitting a troop concentration.

“Nobody saw a single spot of blood anywhere,” she told the AP. “Everyone saw yesterday that no one carried out any bodies. It’s just people cleaning up.”

Wait! Russia just made that up? Pshaw! No way! Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was quick to respond:

“The Defense Ministry is the main, legitimate and comprehensive source of information about the course of the special military operation,” Peskov said Monday in a conference call with reporters, using the Kremlin’s term for the war.

Both sides have regularly claimed killing hundreds of each other’s soldiers in attacks. The claims can seldom be independently verified because of the fighting.

Moscow’s allegations may have backfired domestically, however, as some Russian military bloggers criticized them.

The Institute for the Study of War think tank said the bloggers “responded negatively to the Russian (Ministry of Defense’s) claim, pointing out that the Russian MoD frequently presents fraudulent claims and criticizing Russian military leadership for fabricating a story ... instead of holding Russian leadership responsible for the losses accountable.”

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If you're going to win the hearts and minds of Ukrainians the best way is to kill, injure and displace as many as you can. KGB101.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Economist article. For the price of a cheap email address.
How Elon Musk’s satellites have saved Ukraine and changed warfare
SpaceX will be launching 50 per week. 400 when Starship gets going.

Franz-Stefan Gady, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think-tank, recently visited the Ukrainian front lines and saw an example of what cheap, ubiquitous connectivity makes possible: a sort of Uber for howitzers. Ukrainian soldiers upload images of potential targets via a mobile network enabled by Starlink. These are sent to an encrypted group chat full of artillery-battery commanders. Those commanders then decide whether to shell the target and, if so, from where. It is much quicker than the means used to co-ordinate fire used up until now.

Thinking about how the navy feeds all target information from all sources into one computer that designates ship and system to respond, Ukraine's method reminds me of Tchaikovsky's ant computer.

A Ukrainian soldier puts it more starkly. “Starlink is our oxygen,” he says. Were it to disappear “Our army would collapse into chaos.”

I trust it has been made clear to Elon, who may or may not be losing his mind that Starlink will not disappear.
And later in the article...

Mr Musk is an unaccountable single individual; Mr Musk’s other business interests may play a role in his decisions; and Mr Musk is Mr Musk.
In September Ukrainian officials told The Economist that Mr Musk had rejected a Ukrainian request to allow Starlink to be used in Crimea, a part of Ukraine which Russia invaded and annexed in 2014, and where Ukraine has conducted numerous raids on ports and air bases.

Cyber-attacks like the one aimed at Ukraine’s legacy satellite system on February 24th are one possibility. So far, though, similar sallies against Starlink appear to have been ineffective, in part thanks to SpaceX’s ability to quickly update the system’s software. Dave Tremper, director of electronic warfare for the Office of the Secretary of Defence, has said the speed of the software response he witnessed to one attack was “eye-watering”.

Physical attacks are also possible. Starlink satellites relay signals they receive to fairly nearby “ground stations”. They in turn send the data on to the internet or back up to another satellite, depending on where the intended recipient is. They thus represent a vulnerability. But with ground stations which handle the traffic to and from Ukraine on nato soil, a physical attack would be a severe escalation.

But newer Starlink satellites communicate with each other via laser link and are not reliant upon ground stations.

With SpaceX and Starlink, this is going to be too much power in the hands of one person. Iran - Yes. Crimea - No. Taiwan - Maybe.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[TV and credit cards]

There's talk amongst France, Poland, and Germany about donating Leopard tanks to the cause. Spain, Greece, Denmark, Finland. Everyone can chip in on tanks, ammo, and maintenance.
There's plenty of Leopard tanks across Europe but Germany (there's that word again) needs to give re-export permission. Seems like Ukraine is forever waiting for Olaf to shit or get off the pot.

 

[Jayjay]

I think Ukraine losing Soledar and Bakhmut in near future will cause some realization that the war isn't going well, and will continue at least until end of 2023. Ukraine's western backers will do one of two things:

1) Increase weapons deliveries and brace for harder times.
2) Cave in to pressure to force a negotiated peace where Russia gets to keep all of the land it has occupied.

Neither is a quick solution. And actually, there's also a third option...

3) Do nothing, continue as before with insufficient arms deliveries and pretend everything is going to work out somehow.

Politicians tend to always choose the "do nothing" option rather than take risks. This also partially explains Germany's timidness. Most Germans think that Germany has already given enough, and more people are against delivering tanks than for. As a politician, Scholz can't go against popular opinion.

 

[Jayjay]

Economist article. For the price of a cheap email address.
How Elon Musk’s satellites have saved Ukraine and changed warfare
SpaceX will be launching 50 per week. 400 when Starship gets going.

Franz-Stefan Gady, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think-tank, recently visited the Ukrainian front lines and saw an example of what cheap, ubiquitous connectivity makes possible: a sort of Uber for howitzers. Ukrainian soldiers upload images of potential targets via a mobile network enabled by Starlink. These are sent to an encrypted group chat full of artillery-battery commanders. Those commanders then decide whether to shell the target and, if so, from where. It is much quicker than the means used to co-ordinate fire used up until now.

Thinking about how the navy feeds all target information from all sources into one computer that designates ship and system to respond, Ukraine's method reminds me of Tchaikovsky's ant computer.

In general, what's special about this war is the extent to which civilian tech is being used. Both sides use commercial satellites, drones, and with Starlink, communications.

As for fire control, Ukraine's method is hacky, and I doubt it's still as good as what Russia has. The key feature isn't satellite communication, it's integrating artillery fire control with the drones. Russia's got this covered. From the time they spot a target, they can hit it within minutes, when it takes 30 minutes to an hour for Ukraine. It's not about the most advanced tech, it's about the right tech and having skills, training and coordination to take advantage of it.

Right now, armor seems to be the big thing that's supposed to save Ukraine. But I still think that Ukraine's biggest achilles heel is artillery. Ukraine can never win with numbers: Russia will always have more men, more tanks, more shells, more artillery pieces. Ukraine needs to be more efficient and skillful. That's the only way to win.

 

[Copernicus]

Right now, armor seems to be the big thing that's supposed to save Ukraine. But I still think that Ukraine's biggest achilles heel is artillery. Ukraine can never win with numbers: Russia will always have more men, more tanks, more shells, more artillery pieces. Ukraine needs to be more efficient and skillful. That's the only way to win.

On that note, consider this news report:

Russian artillery fire down nearly 75%, US officials say, in latest sign of struggles for Moscow​

Russia still has Ukraine outgunned in artillery firepower, but it seems that this is becoming less of a factor as both sides run out of ammo. If Russia depends largely on two suppliers--Iran and North Korea--then it is in a very bad spot. The ability of western factories, particularly American factories, to manufacture weapons of war is vastly superior to the capability of those two countries. Right now, the funding is in place in the US to continue supplying most of the weapons to Ukraine, and it is highly unlikely that domestic opposition from some Republicans can do anything to change that. No bills to cut back the funds are going to pass through the Senate or get past Biden's veto power.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

During WW2, and The Blitz, besides radar, Britain had a well organized net of ground observers, connected with a well organized telephone net work. Britain's Fighter Command could track German aircraft minute by minute with great accuracy, despite German attempts at deception. Ukraine seems to have organized themselves similarly. Organized communications and well trained observers make for a tough battle field environment. And destroyed enemy munitions depots and command posts.

 

[Patooka]

Russia will always have more men, more tanks, more shells, more artillery pieces

I wouldn't bet anything I'm prepared to lose on that assumption. Ukraine has severe logistics problems, that is true. This article in November highlights them. But that is fuck all compared to the drama Russian units face. There is a lot of talk about Russia mobilising another 500,000 soldiers; I shudder to think what sort of equipment they're gonna get or the "training" they will receive. Honestly, there is a non-zero chance Russian reinforcements will be rolling in on T-34s

 

[bilby]

During WW2, and The Blitz, besides radar, Britain had a well organized net of ground observers, connected with a well organized telephone net work.

Sure, as a cover for the fact that they had RDF, something that the Germans didn't know.

Britain's Fighter Command could track German aircraft minute by minute with great accuracy, despite German attempts at deception.

Using RDF (later renamed RADAR).

Germany put considerable effort into trying to determine whether Britain had a RADAR capability, and on the eve of war in 1939, concluded, incorrectly, that they did not - because the British used a completely different and much longer wavelength than the Germans.

The British used a whole range of tactics to try to give the Germans an explanation for how, without RADAR, the RAF were so effective against the Luftwaffe raids. These included the ground observer network; Acoustic mirrors (which had been used in WWI against Zeppelin raids); and even the rumour that RAF fighter pilots had superior night vision due to a diet high in Vitamin A (the latter being the source of the persistent myth that carrots are good for your eyes).

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There came a point that Germany knew very well Britain had radar and put quite some effort into trying to destroy Britain's coastal radar installations. And yes, well organized ground observers very well played an important roll in tracking German aircraft.