Russia invades Ukraine

[Annetts key]

I think it is only a matter of time before Ukrainian forces try a new major offensive into Russian held territory.

Even with Russia “regrouping” after their withdrawal from the north west of side of the Dnieper/Dnipro River in the Kherson Oblast and with their so called extra solders from their mobilisation, they are only making very slow and painful advances on the eastern front and in one or two hot spots in the south. Even then, this is with what appears to be large losses of soldiers.

And Ukraine continues to receive weapons, ammunition, financial and other help. Meanwhile Russia is continuing to suffer from sanctions. Although I don’t believe they are anywhere near exhausting their long range missiles despite much speculation about this.

There is currently no reason for Ukraine to want to negotiate anything other than the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from all Ukrainian territory.

So the question is not who will win, but rather, how long will it take before Russia decides that the better move is to withdraw.

Edited to correct a missing d from an ‘and’!

 

[Cloud Strife]

I think it is only a matter of time before Ukrainian forces try a new major offensive into Russian held territory.

There are some issues here, specifically that Ukraine doesn't have that much offensive firepower. They're burning through a tremendous amount of ammunition, and there are more and more reports suggesting that NATO simply can't supply as much as Ukraine needs. It's actually a rather big surprise, because it means that NATO is not the logistics powerhouse that everyone assumed it was. Some examples: the US is finding it difficult to replenish their Javelin and Stinger stocks, Germany is doing nearly nothing to replace their small amounts of stock, and the UK is also discovering that it simply doesn't have the amounts on hand that it would need in war.

It looks like NATO governments are simply unwilling to pull the trigger on large new orders, which in the case of European countries isn't that surprising. But the US? Everyone assumed that their miltary-industrial machine would be turned on and now the ammo would be pouring into Ukraine, but it isn't.

While I was convinced that Ukraine would grind down and overwhelm Russia in the months to come, the ammunition shortage is a serious problem on both sides. I am quite surprised and shocked that the US wasn't able to flick a switch in order to produce whatever Ukraine needs, and this points at things like the F-35 programme wasting a ridiculous amount of cash while neglecting the nuts and bolts of war.

Of course, Russia is in a worse place, but they will be defenders. If it boils down to street fights because of the lack of ammo on both sides, Russia will have the advantage. Even things like air defence: Ukraine desperately needs much better air defence systems. They're doing a great job with what they have, but it's nowhere near enough.

Allegedly (but according to the ISW), the US is no longer saying 'no' to Ukrainian attacks on Russian military targets within the Russian Federation.

The weather is all over the place right now in Ukraine too, so this also won't be helping. It's cold in the west, but around Kherson, Donetsk and Kharkiv, it's unseasonably warm.

 

[brad465]

Allegedly (but according to the ISW), the US is no longer saying 'no' to Ukrainian attacks on Russian military targets within the Russian Federation.

If true, this would explain the recent attacks/explosions within Russia on bases. Maybe also this is the US realising that if it can't get Ukraine armed for much longer, then letting Ukraine attack targets over the border might cause those high up in Russia to blink sooner, and/or conserve ammunition for Ukraine in the long term.

 

[Annetts key]

I don’t doubt that there are problems with production of ammunition, spare parts (new barrels and similar) and other consumable items in the west. Our politicians didn’t expect to be fighting any big or long (in terms of timeframe) wars.

No manufacturer is going to keep production facilities ready if they have no orders.

I don’t know if western governments have been in contact with the various military equipment manufacturers, but I suspect many have. But obviously are not going to make public any information on lead times before production lines can become operational. That may explain why there is very little news.

Or it could be that the politicians have not got their act together yet.

I personally think it will take a lot longer than the estimates that some Ukrainians have made. This conflict could go on for a number of years depending on how much support the west can give Ukraine.

At the same time, Russia is eating its way through its own weapons, ammunition and personnel. It is getting some supplies from elsewhere, and has its own manufacturing. But I very much doubt that they are able to get anywhere close to the rate at which they are using them.

On the subject of Russian soldiers, if they are loosing an average of 274 per day, in one years time, that’s 100000. Russia can’t keep that up. Especially as the number of injured is likely to be far higher.

We are on day 291 and the Ukrainians say that they estimate that 94140 Russia military personnel have been ‘liquidated’. That’s an average of 323.5 per day…

So it may well come down to which side has the most resources. And even if western weapons production is slow to get going with (re)opening production lines, ultimately, I think it will be able to ramp up production to get to the levels needed.

It’s also possible that if pressure is applied, in the right places, the Russian forces may well either be forced back, or will have to withdraw to try to form a new defensive line/positions.

It’s not likely to be as big as what happened in the Kharkiv oblast, but it could still be significant.

 

[DustyBin]

It looks like NATO governments are simply unwilling to pull the trigger on large new orders, which in the case of European countries isn't that surprising. But the US? Everyone assumed that their miltary-industrial machine would be turned on and now the ammo would be pouring into Ukraine, but it isn't.

The US has just passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. The document is over 4000 pages long and doesn’t exactly make for light reading, however there is some analysis in this Twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/MIL_STD/status/1600473574245945344

The kit involved will be delivered over years rather than months obviously, but it’s a huge commitment nevertheless.

 

[Yew]

the US is finding it difficult to replenish their Javelin and Stinger stocks,

Isn't Stinger an end-of-life platform anyway, something more in the "will be replaced by something else" area of its lifecycle. Just because stocks are being depleted, doesn't mean "are in danger of running out before new units are created". There are certainly supply risks, but we can be certain that those in the supply chains are looking at how to service the demand.

Everyone assumed that their miltary-industrial machine would be turned on and now the ammo would be pouring into Ukraine, but it isn't.

Whilst it is fair to say that US stocks are being depleted (as in things from inventory are being used), It's mostly more a case of "if this keeps going on we might need to spin up some production lines, and if we look, we see authorisations are being made for tens of thousands of missiles to be produced next year . Perhaps the only area that might be an issue is with systems like HIMARS, which whilst a useful asset for Ukraine, is realistically only a niche tool in the context of a NATO military action, and production lines are scaled as such. Equally, what preparations are being made to sustain productions may not be being made publicly available.

and this points at things like the F-35 programme wasting a ridiculous amount of cash while neglecting the nuts and bolts of war.

Isn't the per-unit cost of the F35 now lower than a "budget" alternative like a Saab Gripen, due to the sheer economies of scale?

I think we can reasonably argue that for the US, the "nuts and bolts of war" are the M1 Abrams, the F35, the Patriot missile and the Arleigh Burke destroyer. You don't need HIMARS and MANPADS as critically when you can service your targets with AMRAAM, Patriot, Paveway, 5" and 120mm.

I could see a case made that perhaps we should be looking away from missiles, to systems that have a more easily sustained supply chain, such as radar-guided artillery and anti-aircraft guns.

 

[najaB]

Isn't the per-unit cost of the F35 now lower than a "budget" alternative like a Saab Gripen, due to the sheer economies of scale?

I believe it is pretty close to parity, but I don't think it is lower. A quick search on Google gives the Gripen a per-unit cost of c. $60M and the F-35A is at $75M. Of course, the F-35 price is only going to go one way from here.

 

[Giugiaro]

I expect the war to evolve towards the "cheapest, most effective and overwhelming" weapon solutions.
Whoever can do the most damage for the lowest price will win the war.

We've seen this with drones and missiles. The simpler and cheaper they are, the more you can build to swarm and overwhelm the enemy.
The counters to these weapons are usually expensive to acquire and feed.

If Ukraine can make Russia burn £100.000 trying to defend itself with £1.000 in weaponry, the war will lean towards a Ukrainian victory.
The same applies the other way around.

The issue is that Russia has spent more money on terror attacks than effectively targeting the Ukrainian forces. And by trying to conquer the whole of Ukraine, Russia has effectively turned on the "WWII British mentality" of the Ukrainian people and reinforced their raison d'être.

EDIT: Pair that with some Ukrainian ingenuity, focus, knowledge of their own territory and Western intelligence.

 

[gingerheid]

EDIT: knowledge of their own territory

This is something that got me when I was on holiday in the Baltic States in the summer. I paid a guide (geography graduate outdoors type rather then learnt some history type!) to take me across a wild bog landscape that I wanted to see without drowning in it. It was money well spent. I was already super impressed by them and happy that their territorial army was in safe hands before their party trick at the end of the walk; which was to tell us that we were 200m from the car and what direction it was, and watch us get helplessly lost trying to walk a straight line in the forest towards it!

 

[Gloster]

I expect the war to evolve towards the "cheapest, most effective and overwhelming" weapon solutions.

Unfortunately for all concerned, as far as some of those at the top in Russia are concerned, this means waves of conscripts. If they can really get/force enough to attack in one place, it could cause serious problems for the Ukrainians.

 

[brad465]

Putin cancelled his annual press conference, which suggests some form of displeasure with him he'd rather not face up to:

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

Russian president Vladimir Putin has cancelled his annual press conference for the first time in a decade, as the Kremlin faces growing disquiet over its invasion of Ukraine following significant battlefield retreats and an unpopular military draft at home.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Unfortunately for all concerned, as far as some of those at the top in Russia are concerned, this means waves of conscripts. If they can really get/force enough to attack in one place, it could cause serious problems for the Ukrainians.

The problem seems to be that they have no idea how to actually arrange this. It shouldn't be rocket science to equip Russian troops with the basics and throw them into war, but they seem incapable of even feeding people in the barracks properly, let alone equipping them with what they need to go to the front line.

 

[brad465]

Not sure what to make of this:

Rishi Sunak orders audit of Ukraine war progress, source says

Senior figures fear the PM may be taking an overly cautious approach as the war enters a key phase.

www.bbc.co.uk

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has asked for an assessment of the progress of the war in Ukraine, BBC Newsnight has learnt.
Senior figures fear the PM may be taking an overly cautious approach as the war enters a key phase.
One Whitehall source likened the exercise to a "Goldman Sachs dashboard" examination of the war and how UK military supplies are used.
Downing Street insists that Mr Sunak is strongly supportive of Ukraine.
In a tweet, Mr Sunak said the UK was with Ukraine "all the way" during a visit to the country last month, his first overseas trip as prime minister.
But the request has raised alarm bells in some corners of Whitehall as military chiefs say weapons supplies to Ukraine may prove decisive in the winter months ahead.
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct. At the start of this it was Boris (Johnson) sitting down and saying: 'Let's just go for this.' So Rishi needs to channel his inner Boris on foreign policy though not of course on anything else."
The source said the audit, known as a data-driven assessment, is designed to assess the progress of the war and the significance of the UK's military contributions to Ukraine. The source said: "This is about looking at what we have put in, what we have got out."

The UK has been one of the biggest suppliers of military aid to Ukraine since Russian President Vladimir Putin's forces invaded the country in February.
BBC Newsnight has been told that Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, is aware of the debate within the UK and is encouraging Mr Sunak to maintain strong military support for his country.
"President Zelensky has sensed what is going on," the source said. "So he has been talking to Rishi. He is trying to inspire him, saying the UK are the great liberators, the great fighters. We need you. Rise to that."
The proposed assessment of the war comes at a crucial point in the conflict. Key figures in Whitehall believe that Ukraine and Russia have fought themselves to a standstill.
The only way, they say, for one side to pull ahead is by substantially increasing their supply of weaponry. Russia has effectively run out of supplies. Ukraine can only resupply weapons with the help of the US and the main military powers in Europe, led by the UK.

 

[gingerheid]

I really really really hope we're not going to have the unimaginable; a "bring back Boris" moment.

 

[yorksrob]

There can be no scaling back of support against the Russian enemy. This is not just about Ukraine but Western security.

If watering down support of Ukraine is the outcome it will confirm the current "government" as unfit for office.

I really really really hope we're not going to have the unimaginable; a "bring back Boris" moment.

Whatever one thinks about Johnson, he believed in Western values and projected them.

 

[brad465]

There can be no scaling back of support against the Russian enemy. This is not just about Ukraine but Western security.

If watering down support of Ukraine is the outcome it will confirm the current "government" as unfit for office.

One thing that might stop the Government doing any scaling back is that it's one area they can genuinely claim to be doing relatively well in, particularly compared to other European countries, who the Government like to be able to say we're better at. If they scale back this argument goes out of the window and Labour, who generally agree with Government support so far, can start criticising them for not doing enough more legitimately.

 

[yorksrob]

One thing that might stop the Government doing any scaling back is that it's one area they can genuinely claim to be doing relatively well in, particularly compared to other European countries, who the Government like to be able to say we're better at. If they scale back this argument goes out of the window and Labour, who generally agree with Government support so far, can start criticising them for not doing enough more legitimately.

One would hope.

And Sunak was purportedly aiming to build a better relationship with Europe than his predecessors. How can he do that without supporting Europe's security.

If the Tory party won't even support Western values, what's the point of it.

 

[Cdd89]

I wonder if the aim may be nudging. If Ukraine and Russia are beginning to consider settlement (and we know Russia are beginning to talk this way), this would make Ukraine marginally more likely to compromise from their favourable position before western support begins to be lost, in a game theory sort of way.

 

[Yew]

Not sure what to make of this:

Rishi Sunak orders audit of Ukraine war progress, source says

Senior figures fear the PM may be taking an overly cautious approach as the war enters a key phase.

www.bbc.co.uk

Well the phrase "Wars are won on instinct." is clearly rubbish. Wars are won on logistics, infrastructure and industry.

 

[brad465]

Rumours of a new offensive being launched, though intelligence agencies currently doubt the prospect of one and it's potential to succeed:

Ukraine war: Putin meets generals as Russian missiles pound cities

Senior Ukrainian commanders say Russia could be planning a new attack early next year.

www.bbc.co.uk

Russian President Vladimir Putin has met his military chiefs on the same day his forces launched another wave of missiles at Ukraine's infrastructure.
Mr Putin spent most of Friday at the headquarters of the "special military operation" discussing ideas for what Russia's next move should be.
It comes as some Ukrainian military officials claimed Russia was planning an offensive, perhaps early next year.
Russian attacks on Ukraine's power grid have plunged millions into darkness.
Footage from Friday's meeting showed Mr Putin flanked by Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and Armed Forces Chief Valeriy Gerasimov.
"We will listen to the commanders in each operational direction, and I would like to hear your proposals on our immediate and medium-term actions," the Kremlin leader was seen telling military officials on state TV.
Gen Gerasimov's presence ends rumours circulating online that he had been dismissed from his position. The 67-year-old has been the target of intensive criticism from hawkish commentators, who have accused him of being too cautious.
Air Force general Sergei Surovikin - who was appointed as Russia's commander in Ukraine in October - was also present at the meeting, photos released by state media showed.
Ukrainian forces have made a series of major advances in recent months, including retaking Kherson - the only major city captured by Russian forces so far.
And the collapse of Moscow's forces in eastern Ukraine earlier this year saw military bosses come in for sustained criticism from pro-Kremlin media figures.

The meeting followed claims by the commander of Ukraine's military, Gen Valerii Zaluzhnyi, that Moscow could seek to launch a new offensive in early 2023. He warned that Russia was preparing around 200,000 troops for the attack.
"I have no doubt they will have another go at Kyiv," he added. "I know how many combat units I have right now, how many combat units I have to create by the end of the year - and, most importantly, not to touch them in any way now. No matter how hard it is."
He added that the attack could originate "in the direction of Kyiv" and may be launched from Belarus.
In February, Russian troops advanced towards the Ukrainian capital Kyiv after crossing the border from Belarus.
While the country's leader Alexander Lukashenko has repeatedly denied that his forces will join in the invasion, thousands of Russian troops are currently in the country taking part in what Moscow's defence ministry called "intensive combat training".
Mr Putin will visit his Belarusian counterpart in Minsk on Monday.

But analysts have questioned Russia's ability to launch a new offensive on the Ukrainian capital, and White House spokesperson John Kirby said that US intelligence officials "aren't seeing any indication that there's an imminent move on Kyiv".
Senior US defence officials told Reuters news agency that Russia had been forced to use decades-old ammunition with high failure rates as it burns through its supplies.
They added that "the rate of fire that Russia has been using its artillery and rocket ammunition" could see them run out of reliable munitions by early 2023.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian workers have spent much of Saturday trying to restore power supplies after a wave of Russian strikes hit the country's energy grid on Friday.
Part of Kyiv remained without power, but mayor Vitali Klitschko said the city's metro system had restarted and the water supply had been restored.
He also posted photos on Telegram of a large Christmas tree that has been adapted to meet the constraints of a wartime winter. The tree will be lit with energy-saving bulbs run off a generator, he said.
Power has been restored in the country's second city of Kharkiv, authorities said, after it was left without electricity for hours following Friday's wave of strikes that targeted energy stations across the country.
Russia has launched more than 1,000 missiles and Iranian-made attack drones since the wave of strikes on power infrastructure began on 10 October. International leaders - including French President Emmanuel Macron - have said the strikes amount to a war crime.
The UK's Ministry of Defence says there had been an "uptick" in Russia's campaign of long-range strikes against Ukraine's critical infrastructure in recent days.

My current thinking is if Putin is talking about a new offensive and/or planning to launch one, it's a move to try and settle nerves/unrest among his critics at home.

 

[Cloud Strife]

My current thinking is if Putin is talking about a new offensive and/or planning to launch one, it's a move to try and settle nerves/unrest among his critics at home.

Almost certainly. There is a point that if Russia can somehow throw a serious amount of forces into an attack on Kyiv, then they might just get in through sheer force of numbers. I'm thinking literal bloodbath stuff: send in troops with the sole purpose of killing on sight with the sole purpose of spreading terror and fear. If they are equipped solely for a one-way trip to Kyiv with no expectation of survival and a light inflatable boat for the sole purpose of crossing the Uzh, then it will be very hard for Kyiv to repel the attacks.

But I don't think Russia is capable of training men and implementing such a plan. They're more likely to walk straight into the meat grinder somewhere, because Ukraine has been steadily fortifying her borders. No-one is getting into Ukraine without getting torn to bits first.

 

[DustyBin]

Almost certainly. There is a point that if Russia can somehow throw a serious amount of forces into an attack on Kyiv, then they might just get in through sheer force of numbers. I'm thinking literal bloodbath stuff: send in troops with the sole purpose of killing on sight with the sole purpose of spreading terror and fear. If they are equipped solely for a one-way trip to Kyiv with no expectation of survival and a light inflatable boat for the sole purpose of crossing the Uzh, then it will be very hard for Kyiv to repel the attacks.

But I don't think Russia is capable of training men and implementing such a plan. They're more likely to walk straight into the meat grinder somewhere, because Ukraine has been steadily fortifying her borders. No-one is getting into Ukraine without getting torn to bits first.

I think the Russians may be trying to distract the Ukrainians in the hope that they divert resources away from the south and east. They may launch another attack from Belarus but it would as you say be a bloodbath.

On the subject of Belarus, it’s difficult to know what’s going on there (possibly not much beyond what we’re being told!) but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if something “snaps”. Putin must be desperate for Belarus to join the fun (so to speak) and I’m fairly sure at this point that Lukashenko is desperate not to, nor his military. Meanwhile you have thousands of Russian soldiers and conscripts in the country, by all accounts this making a nuisance of themselves…… Things may well get interesting!

 

[najaB]

I'm thinking literal bloodbath stuff: send in troops with the sole purpose of killing on sight with the sole purpose of spreading terror and fear. If they are equipped solely for a one-way trip to Kyiv with no expectation of survival and a light inflatable boat for the sole purpose of crossing the Uzh, then it will be very hard for Kyiv to repel the attacks.

Thing is, this isn't the 1940s when people didn't know what was happening until the film made it back home, or the 1970s when you could massacre an entire village and people would still arguing about if it actually happened forty years later. This bloodbath would be livestreamed in full HD. There's no way that Russia could paint it as a legitimate act of war - if they think they are pariahs now just imagine what the world's reaction would be to that course of action.

 

[DustyBin]

Thing is, this isn't the 1940s when people didn't know what was happening until the film made it back home, or the 1970s when you could massacre an entire village and people would still arguing about if it actually happened forty years later. This bloodbath would be livestreamed in full HD. There's no way that Russia could paint it as a legitimate act of war - if they think they are pariahs now just imagine what the world's reaction would be to that course of action.

True, and there is probably a point at which “someone” says enough is enough, and decides that the risk of escalation is outweighed by the moral duty not to simply stand by and watch this unfold. Who that “somebody” would be I’m not sure, but prominent NATO members would be involved without doubt……

 

[dgl]

and I doubt you'd need a coordinated response, I reckon for most of the NATO countries just one could get involved and Russia would be done for.

 

[Cloud Strife]

True, and there is probably a point at which “someone” says enough is enough, and decides that the risk of escalation is outweighed by the moral duty not to simply stand by and watch this unfold. Who that “somebody” would be I’m not sure, but prominent NATO members would be involved without doubt……

There is a good question here as to who would get involved. Slovakia and Hungary are a no, meaning that it would likely be either Romania or Poland that would have the capability of doing so. I can't believe the Romanian forces are in any position to launch an offensive attack, so that leaves Poland. I am not at all convinced that there's support to engage Russia in war here, and the government here would be finished if Russia fought back and started attacking Polish cities.

and I’m fairly sure at this point that Lukashenko is desperate not to, nor his military.

I think Lukashenko is well aware that Russia would simply throw Belarusian troops onto the front line in order to protect Russian troops, and the end result would be a crisis in his leadership.

I mean, right now, I think Russia will attack from Belarus, get mowed down in their thousands and then we'll be where we are today. The forests around the Belarusian border must be well mined by now, and I suspect that the territorial defences there are more than ready for any invasion from the north.

But this is unpredictable Russia we're dealing with. While we can see that it would be idiotic to launch a bloodbath from the north, a desperate Putin might not see any other way out than to try and go straight for Kyiv by any means necessary.

 

[gingerheid]

I can't see Putin caring about any civil consequences for Lukashenko; puppet leader of the territory most successfully invaded during this NotAWar.

 

[edwin_m]

Putin remains (through less so recently) relatively popular in Russia but it seems Lukashenko's position in Belarus is more precarious. A substantial part of the Belarus army is likely to be against him and in any joint invasion the Russians would have to keep an eye on their ostensible allies and their supply chains in the rear as well as Ukrainian countermeasures. Replacing him with even more of a puppet could be a trigger for widespread unrest. Putin possibly doesn't know or care, but this could be more trouble than it's worth.

 

[DustyBin]

There is a good question here as to who would get involved. Slovakia and Hungary are a no, meaning that it would likely be either Romania or Poland that would have the capability of doing so. I can't believe the Romanian forces are in any position to launch an offensive attack, so that leaves Poland. I am not at all convinced that there's support to engage Russia in war here, and the government here would be finished if Russia fought back and started attacking Polish cities.

I don’t think anyone will get involved without the support of either the US, UK, or France as this should neutralise the threat of any kind of WMD use in retaliation. On the other hand it would bring nuclear powers into direct confrontation which is exactly what everyone is trying to avoid. Unless something changes dramatically, I don’t think any of this will happen to be honest.

I think Lukashenko is well aware that Russia would simply throw Belarusian troops onto the front line in order to protect Russian troops, and the end result would be a crisis in his leadership.

I mean, right now, I think Russia will attack from Belarus, get mowed down in their thousands and then we'll be where we are today. The forests around the Belarusian border must be well mined by now, and I suspect that the territorial defences there are more than ready for any invasion from the north.

But this is unpredictable Russia we're dealing with. While we can see that it would be idiotic to launch a bloodbath from the north, a desperate Putin might not see any other way out than to try and go straight for Kyiv by any means necessary.

Russia could quite possibly launch another offensive from Belarus in hope of distracting Ukraine, or out of sheer desperation, but it will almost certainly fail as you say. I don’t think Belarus will get involved directly though. Lukashenko has one priority, i.e. his his own self preservation, which doesn’t make him a reliable partner from a Russian perspective.

 

[Giugiaro]

So Zelensky went today to Bakhmut. Another act of defiance against Putin who, so far, hasn't been on Ukrainian soil.

Ukraine war: Volodymyr Zelensky visits front-line city of Bakhmut

The Ukrainian president meets troops in a city badly damaged after months of fierce fighting.

www.bbc.com