Ukraine proxy war?

[Toro]

 

[para bellum]

Putin's new Ukraine essay reveals imperial ambitions

Russian President Vladimir Putin has outlined the historical basis for his claims against Ukraine in a controversial new essay that has been likened in some quarters to a declaration of war.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

 

[ESay]

Which is why I said this is not a NATO proxy war.

NATO wasn't giving Ukraine any odds of success. 72 to 96 hours was the expectation.

If NATO's intent was to use Ukraine to fight a war with Russia, there would have been some preparation.

I don't know. It is a complex question. For my, a clear sign of preparation is what Ukrainian army was 8 years ago, and what it is now. I already said that and repeat it now.

Back then, the only reason why Ukraine didn't lose a half of its territory is because the Putin regime believed in their 'cunning plan' with the Minsk agreements, implementation of which on their terms would have meant Ukraine remained in Russian orbit by political means.

Ukrainian army was highly incompetent, poorly trained, without proper equipment and logistics.
In other words, what Russian army is today, only with lesser number of people and hardware. And that it has an ability to fight now is thanks to the West instructors and advisors.

I should agree that the scenario A, in the case of invasion, seemed to be Russian quick advance into Ukrainian territory, to the point that at least the East Bank, Southern part and Kiev would be in their hands in a matter of days or weeks. In other case, there wouldn't have been a need to evacuate the Western embassies to Lvov and Poland.

But the things developed with a different scenario. And I can't say the US wasn't prepared for that. It is like the saying 'Hope for the good outcome, but be prepared to the worst' (I hope I put it in English in a proper way).

 

[Toro]

 

[para bellum]

I don't know. It is a complex question. For my, a clear sign of preparation is what Ukrainian army was 8 years ago, and what it is now. I already said that and repeat it now.

Back then, the only reason why Ukraine didn't lose a half of its territory is because the Putin regime believed in their 'cunning plan' with the Minsk agreements, implementation of which on their terms would have meant Ukraine remained in Russian orbit by political means.

Ukrainian army was highly incompetent, poorly trained, without proper equipment and logistics.
In other words, what Russian army is today, only with lesser number of people and hardware. And that it has an ability to fight now is thanks to the West instructors and advisors.

I should agree that the scenario A, in the case of invasion, seemed to be Russian quick advance into Ukrainian territory, to the point that at least the East Bank, Southern part and Kiev would be in their hands in a matter of days or weeks. In other case, there wouldn't have been a need to evacuate the Western embassies to Lvov and Poland.

But the things developed with a different scenario. And I can't say the US wasn't prepared for that. It is like the saying 'Hope for the good outcome, but be prepared to the worst' (I hope I put it in English in a proper way).

Esay, I don't know if you've read this from Mark Hertling about the transformation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. You're right, 8 years ago they weren't anything to write home about. They are not the same force today, as we all are witnessing.

Anyway, you might find this interesting if you haven't seen it.

I Commanded U.S. Army Europe. Here's What I Saw in the Russian and Ukrainian Armies.

The two armies at war today couldn’t be more different.

www.thebulwark.com

 

[Silver Cat]

All 400 ICBMs will be launched as soon as it is apparent that Russia is attacking.

No. Launch on warning needs more than seven minutes (even at drills, when there are no doubts and countermeasures). Flight time at supressed ballistic trajectory from the Northern Pole - seven minutes too. If the Russians use a window in SBIRS watching, or it was degraded by the Russians countermeasures, or they had launched their missiles from Canadian sector of Arctic - the USA will be able to detect incoming warheads only when it is too late.

The Ohios that are on hard alert for a rapid counterforce attack have enough range to stay far back from any Russian weapons. All of their missiles will join with the 400 ICBMs in a massive counterforce attack.

Not from "any". Depends on still unclear possibilities of their (and Chines) sensors (satellite and underwater), their spies and hackers, readiness of their auxiliary fleet, etc..

A minimum of four Ohios will be on a strictly countervalue mission. And they won't be the subs on hard alert for a rapid counterforce attack. They will be the ones traveling to or returning from hard alert patrol. So they will be even further-yet from Russian weapons

Not only from Russian weapons, but from Russian targets, too.

.



All of Russia's missile defenses will have been eliminated by our counterforce strike.

It's hardly possible. S-300/400/500 are mobile, A-135 and A-235 are in silos. If you target your warheads at Moscow - the Russians will use two counter-missile to hit one warhead. If you target your warheads at A-235 silos - you will use two warheads to eliminate one counter-missile.

Four Ohios on a strictly countervalue mission (and with Russia's missiles defenses having already been wiped out) will be able to wipe Russia off the face of the earth forever.

No. If the Russians already evacuated and sheltered their population, four Ohios (with twenty missiles each) may be, will be able to flatter few big, but almost empty cities and kill, say, less than one million of the Russians. Not even close to "unacceptable" level of losses.

Any Russian population hiding out in shelters had better be prepared to wait at least 500 years before emerging.

No. Three days will be more than enough in the most of cases.

 

[ESay]

Esay, I don't know if you've read this from Mark Hertling about the transformation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. You're right, 8 years ago they weren't anything to write home about. They are not the same force today, as we all are witnessing.

Anyway, you might find this interesting if you haven't seen it.

I Commanded U.S. Army Europe. Here's What I Saw in the Russian and Ukrainian Armies.

The two armies at war today couldn’t be more different.

www.thebulwark.com

Thanks, it was an interesting read. I had never heard about Mark Hertling before. It is good that there was such Generals as Vorobiov back then. I hope there are more of them now.

BTW, when I read about General Vorobiov a little bit, I found out that he was fired in January 2014 (when Yanukovich was still the president) for refusing to use the force against the Euromaidan demonstrators. Whether it is really true, I can't say.

 

[para bellum]

Thanks, it was an interesting read. I had never heard about Mark Hertling before. It is good that there was such Generals as Vorobiov back then. I hope there are more of them now.

BTW, when I read about General Vorobiov a little bit, I found out that he was fired in January 2014 (when Yanukovich was still the president) for refusing to use the force against the Euromaidan demonstrators. Whether it is really true, I can't say.

Wouldn't surprise me, the way Hertling talked about him.

One thing I have to keep reminding myself though. Much of Ukraine's success has to be attributed to Russia's poor performance.

Against a competent Russian army with mechanized logistics? I think it would be a different story...

 

[Sunni Man]

One thing I have to keep reminding myself though. Much of Ukraine's success has to be attributed to Russia's poor performance.

Ukraine army isn't having any success against the Russian army that is steadily crushing them on every front.

 

[ESay]

Wouldn't surprise me, the way Hertling talked about him.

One thing I have to keep reminding myself though. Much of Ukraine's success has to be attributed to Russia's poor performance.

Against a competent Russian army with mechanized logistics? I think it would be a different story...

Of course, that is mainly all about Russia's poor performance. And even with that I don't exclude future territorial gains by Russia in Ukraine.

Some say that a second raid on Kiev is highly possible. Though, I am not sure now that that will come true. For me, returning of the US embassy to Kiev is a mark.

 

[para bellum]

Ukraine army isn't having any success against the Russian army that is steadily crushing them on every front.

Sunni, you and I are reading different accounts. That's all that can be said.

I've read the Russian version, I just don't believe it.

I don't think Kiev was a feint. I don't think the First Guards Tank Army put their newest tanks in storage and went to Ukraine with old equipment.

I think the Moskva was hit by Ukrainian cruise missiles and sunk due to poor damage control.

I haven't seen a single video showing Russian armor taking up standard defensive formations or properly reacting to contact.

I see blown up trucks with tires that are embossed "Made in the USSR", and date-coded to 1991. Sun bleached, cracked and checked sidewalls, etc. I see not one sign of mechanized logistics.

It all looks good on paper, but up close it looks like shit. What am I supposed to think? Logistics don't matter?

Russia has a lot of firepower, maybe they can grind all of Ukraine into the dust. I guess we'll find out.

 

[Open Bolt]

No. Launch on warning needs more than seven minutes (even at drills, when there are no doubts and countermeasures). Flight time at supressed ballistic trajectory from the Northern Pole - seven minutes too. If the Russians use a window in SBIRS watching, or it was degraded by the Russians countermeasures, or they had launched their missiles from Canadian sector of Arctic - the USA will be able to detect incoming warheads only when it is too late.

Launch on warning requires 80 seconds.

If Russia degrades our early warning sensors, we'll prepare ourselves, and then launch on warning will take about 20 seconds.

Not from "any". Depends on still unclear possibilities of their (and Chines) sensors (satellite and underwater), their spies and hackers, readiness of their auxiliary fleet, etc..

Ohio subs will not be vulnerable to any Russian attacks.

It's hardly possible. S-300/400/500 are mobile, A-135 and A-235 are in silos. If you target your warheads at Moscow - the Russians will use two counter-missile to hit one warhead. If you target your warheads at A-235 silos - you will use two warheads to eliminate one counter-missile.

Our counterforce attack will send one warhead at each ABM silo.

No. If the Russians already evacuated and sheltered their population, four Ohios (with twenty missiles each) may be, will be able to flatter few big, but almost empty cities and kill, say, less than one million of the Russians. Not even close to "unacceptable" level of losses.

Four Ohios on a strictly countervalue mission will be able to destroy Russia's 300 largest cities.

No. Three days will be more than enough in the most of cases.

The strontium and cesium will be a radioactive danger for 500 years.

The destruction of the ozone layer will make UV rays a danger for a good century.

The nuclear winter will last for years if not decades.

 

[Open Bolt]

It all looks good on paper, but up close it looks like shit. What am I supposed to think? Logistics don't matter?

Russia did really poorly against Georgian troops in 2008 as well.

The problem that Georgia had was, they only had enough troops to protect their capital. There were not enough Georgian troops to prevent Russian soldiers from raping and murdering civilians out in the open countryside.

 

[Sunni Man]

Sunni, you and I are reading different accounts. That's all that can be said.
I've read the Russian version, I just don't believe it.

I totally disregard anything said by the lying American media and bogus Ukrainian dept. of propaganda. And only believe about half of what the Russians officially say.
I trust a few journalist/podcasters like this English guy who doesn't have any skin in the game for either side.
(this podcast is one day old)

As Pressure Increases on Ukrainian Forces in Northern Donbass False Stories Spread​

 

[badger2]

When Zelenskiy's advisor says in a video that the Admiral Makarov did not get hit, one should believe it. One of the biggest Ukrainian losses of this conflict has just occurred: the high ground at Popasna

 

[para bellum]

I trust a few journalist/podcasters like this English guy who doesn't have any skin in the game for either side.

I don't listen to much commentary.

I read the logistics threads on Twitter, and check this guy for force posture and territorial updates. Then compare to Jomini of the West on the maps.

Jomini spends more time on strategy, this guy is better on troop dispositions, and breaks down each salient individually.

Give it a look if you're so inclined.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP2QApi8G2TKc8NZmeDWSUg/videos

 

[para bellum]

When Zelenskiy's advisor says in a video that the Admiral Makarov did not get hit, one should believe it.

But when he says it was hit you shouldn't believe him?

I will reserve judgement for now. Putin's comments about the US giving intel freaked out the higher-ups in D.C. STFU was the word of the day...

The Black Sea isn't the Atlantic Ocean. If it's afloat, the shipspotters will find it.

One of the biggest Ukrainian losses of this conflict has just occurred: the high ground at Popasna

In other words, there's nothing left of Popasna but rubble...

1km down, 120 to go.

 

[Silver Cat]

Launch on warning requires 80 seconds.

Source?
Even in Wikipedia we can read:
-----------------
Launch on warning (LOW) or fire on warning[1][2] is a strategy of nuclear weapon retaliation that gained recognition during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. With the invention of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), launch on warning became an integral part of mutually assured destruction (MAD) theory. Under the strategy, a retaliatory strike is launched upon warning of enemy nuclear attack while its missiles are still in the air and before detonation occurs. US land-based missiles can reportedly be launched within five minutes of a presidential decision to do so and submarine-based missiles within 15 minutes.
-----------------
And what is worse - a significant part of American military society believes that even LOW is too dangerous. Lesser time to think, they say, means higher probability of mistake.

Biden should end the launch-on-warning option

President Biden should end the launch-on-warning option and the danger it entails of an unintended nuclear Armageddon. He could order Strategic Command to plan the US nuclear posture on the assumption that he will not launch on warning. US nuclear planners would have to assume a delayed response...

thebulletin.org

If Russia degrades our early warning sensors, we'll prepare ourselves, and then launch on warning will take about 20 seconds.

It's technically impossible.

Ohio subs will not be vulnerable to any Russian attacks.

Of course they are vulnerable. Their only protection is stealthiness, if the Russians (and their allies) can find them - the Russians can destroy them. And nobody really knows how good are their surveillance systems (as well as their spies and hackers).

Our counterforce attack will send one warhead at each ABM silo.

And it is still two times worse than the Russians themselves suppose - two counter-missiles vs one incoming warhead.

Four Ohios on a strictly countervalue mission will be able to destroy Russia's 300 largest cities.

No. 4x20x4= 320. And destruction of the largest Russian cities demands much more than one 90 kt W76-1 warhead (say nothing about 2 kt W76-2 warhead).
What is even more important - destruction of the 300 almost empty cities may kill less than 1 million of the Russians, it will be enough to make them angry, but far from enough to prevent their own counter-value attack.

The strontium and cesium will be a radioactive danger for 500 years.

And the amount of strontium and cesium will little higher than after Chernobyl or Fukushima accidents.

The destruction of the ozone layer will make UV rays a danger for a good century.

The nuclear winter will last for years if not decades.

Nuclear winter (as well as global warming) is just another environmentalistic horror-story. Fairy tale. Anyway, winter don't kill people by itself. Unpreparedness is what really kills. And the Russians are better prepared.
As they sing: "The chaos of destruction and starvation will be ended, every day will becomes warmer and lighter, but all my enemies will lay dead in the Topol's ash"

 

[Open Bolt]

Source?

"If the President did choose to respond with a nuclear attack, he would identify himself to military officials at the Pentagon with codes unique to him. These codes are recorded on an ID card, known as the “biscuit,” that the President carries at all times. Once identified, he would transmit the launch order to the Pentagon and STRATCOM. The Secretary of Defense would possibly contribute to the process by confirming that the order came from the President, but this role could also be filled by an officer in the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon. STRATCOM would implement the order by preparing to launch the weapons needed for the selected option. According to Bruce Blair, an expert on U.S. command and control, once the order is “transmitted to the war room, they would execute it in a minute or so.” If an immediate response was selected, “the (land-based) Minuteman missiles will fire in two minutes. The submarines will fire in 15 minutes.” Blair also noted that there is no way to reverse the order."

Product Details IF10521

Congressional Research Service, Congressional Reports, Congressional Reports, CRS

crsreports.congress.gov

I recommend downloading the most recent version since it is most up to date.

And what is worse - a significant part of American military society believes that even LOW is too dangerous. Lesser time to think, they say, means higher probability of mistake.

Biden should end the launch-on-warning option

President Biden should end the launch-on-warning option and the danger it entails of an unintended nuclear Armageddon. He could order Strategic Command to plan the US nuclear posture on the assumption that he will not launch on warning. US nuclear planners would have to assume a delayed response...

thebulletin.org

I'd love for us to upgrade to an ICBM system where launch on warning is unnecessary.

I favor a system where each ICBM is on a rail in a shallow tunnel in a 20 mile long loop that it can launch from at multiple points. But if that is too expensive then we could at least build the same sort of garrison-based mobile ICBMs that Russia and China have.

But until we upgrade to such a system, launch on warning is what we have to use.

It's technically impossible.

Not at all. As soon as we see that our early warning sensors are being messed with, we could set the alert levels to DEFCON 1M while we wait to see if there is an attack coming.

"SAC also had a DEFCON 1M level which stipulated that “ICBMs will be counted down to point of minimum hold,” meaning that they were ready for instant launch."

How the Strategic Air Command Would Go to Nuclear War | National Security Archive

Washington, D.C., March 13, 2019 - Last month’s posting by Robert S. Hopkins on “How the Strategic Air Command Would Have Gone to Nuclear War” provided incredible detail on SAC procedures during the 1960s. Strategic Air Command veteran Bruce Blair takes the story in to the 1970s, with an...

nsarchive.gwu.edu

Of course they are vulnerable. Their only protection is stealthiness, if the Russians (and their allies) can find them - the Russians can destroy them. And nobody really knows how good are their surveillance systems (as well as their spies and hackers).

No one on earth (Russia included) has any ability to locate an Ohio class submarine until the moment it launches its first missile.

And it is still two times worse than the Russians themselves suppose - two counter-missiles vs one incoming warhead.

An ABM that is expended protecting "itself" from the counterforce warhead that was sent to destroy its silo, is an ABM that is no longer available to protect Moscow from a countervalue attack.

No. 4x20x4= 320. And destruction of the largest Russian cities demands much more than one 90 kt W76-1 warhead (say nothing about 2 kt W76-2 warhead).

Under current force loadings, each Ohio has about 90 warheads.

The vast majority of Russia's 300 largest cities will be annihilated by a single 90 kiloton warhead. It is OK if there is a ring of undestroyed minor structures left on the outskirts of the cities.

What is even more important - destruction of the 300 almost empty cities may kill less than 1 million of the Russians, it will be enough to make them angry, but far from enough to prevent their own counter-value attack.

We would only make countervalue attacks if Russia made such attacks first, although countervalue attacks against a NATO ally would certainly count.

If Russia did not make any countervalue attacks, then the war would stop after the mutual counterforce strikes.

And the amount of strontium and cesium will little higher than after Chernobyl or Fukushima accidents.

Notice that both are no-go areas today?

How many years ago was Chernobyl? I recall hearing that some Russian soldiers got sick last month from deploying to the Chernobyl no-go area.

Once the entire surface of the planet is a no-go area, best to stay in your shelter for at least 500 years.

Nuclear winter (as well as global warming) is just another environmentalistic horror-story. Fairy tale.

That is incorrect. Nuclear winter is 100% real.

Anyway, winter don't kill people by itself. Unpreparedness is what really kills. And the Russians are better prepared.
As they sing: "The chaos of destruction and starvation will be ended, every day will becomes warmer and lighter, but all my enemies will lay dead in the Topol's ash"

Russia's confidence in their ability to survive a nuclear war is probably misplaced.

But the environmental devastation will take care of anyone who does manage to survive.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Wondering what has to be going through Putin's mind right now.

Vlad Is Glad

The Eurine Union's economy collapsing, with NYETO going down the tubes into the Yookie gloryhole.