Great Power contentions

[Montmorency]

lol I substituted the name of the British politician in the other thread


Dailykos has a particular bias in its Ukraine analysis, but there are some useful nuggets, such as that the HIMARS GMLRS rocket costs about as much per unit as the Excalibur 155mm projectile (>$100K), and the US arsenal is probably significantly less than 50 thousand of the latter (which is still several times more GMLRS than Excalibur). Explains why allegedly the Allies don't intend to contribute more than 15 cumulative HIMARS to Ukraine (with up to 12 currently in or on the way to Ukraine).

Meanwhile, news since early May suggested that Excalibur contributions to Ukraine were minimal, but this week's US aid package to Ukraine lists "1000 high-precision 155mm shells", almost certainly Excalibur, so in the context of the dozens of Krab, PzHaubitze 2000, CAESAR, M109 Paladin, and other platforms Ukraine has already received, it seems plausible that the Allies have developed a considerable respect for Ukraine's needs in artillery parity. I don't know if ATACMS rockets for HIMARS (the 300km range ones) have the power to break up the Kerch Strait bridge, but if they do, it would be a fantastic allocation.


You'll probably never get the post on LDPR fighters I once planned to write, but I see ISW noted that "140 thousand" conscripts have been mobilized since the beginning of the war, which presumably does not include the standing separatist armies from the outset. On one hand, Russia has probably exhausted the readily accessible pool of conscripts in occupied Donbass below the level of total war. The population under Russian control must be around 3 million, so they're at half of WW2 Soviet mobilization levels. On the other hand, it means the Ukrainians face over a hundred thousand more separatists than they did at the beginning of the war. Once more, either side would be at a standstill without its respective horde of minimally-trained paramilitaries. Also why I don't think Russia attempts to annex the Donbass unless it can secure an armistice while the full oblasts are under their control; designating them as first-class Russian citizens would come with more legal rights from military coercion.

[spmetla]

Dailykos has a particular bias in its Ukraine analysis, but there are some useful nuggets, such as that the HIMARS GMLRS rocket costs about as much per unit as the Excalibur 155mm projectile (>$100K), and the US arsenal is probably significantly less than 50 thousand of the latter (which is still several times more GMLRS than Excalibur). Explains why allegedly the Allies don't intend to contribute more than 15 cumulative HIMARS to Ukraine (with up to 12 currently in or on the way to Ukraine).

Certainly, expensive munitions but looking at the ammo depots and C2 nodes hit since these have arrived, I'd say worth the cost. Even with Western support Ukraine won't get a quantitative edge over Russia in artillery but if range and precision are better for Ukraine, they can cause a lot of hurt.

I don't know if ATACMS rockets for HIMARS (the 300km range ones) have the power to break up the Kerch Strait bridge, but if they do, it would be a fantastic allocation.

I agree, however if I were the commander on the Southern front, I'd do night strikes against docked naval ships, subs, and harbor facilities in Sevastapol first alongside their airbases too. This together with a destruction of Kerch Strait bridge would really hurt Russia logistically. I imagine over the next few weeks we'll see a lot of railyards going up in smoke as Russia still seems bound to these for supply. I also think that if the Black Sea fleet ends up forced to hole up along the Caucasus coastline that'd limit the ability to do effective cruise missile or shore bombardment roles if the Ukrainians end up successfully pushing south and east of Kherson.

Curious if we'll see a larger and more successful offensive by Ukraine in the south given that Zelensky has ordered it to be liberated. So far Ukraine hasn't been able to muster the numbers and effects to do more than nibble away at village after village.

Also, curious as to Russia's next offensive, I think they'll preserve what strength they have right now to try and blunt any Ukrainian counter-offensive and then push to take the whole of Donetsk and if possible, push on Mikolayiv.

Fall and winter aren't too far away and I'm worried what further gas supply shenanigans Russia will do to Ukraine and Europe as a whole.

[Montmorency]

HIMARS GMLRS rocket costs about as much per unit as the Excalibur 155mm projectile (>$100K), and the US arsenal is probably significantly less than 50 thousand of the latter (which is still several times more GMLRS than Excalibur).

I screwed that up, "less than 50 thousand" was supposed to refer to GMLRS; Excalibur inventory is in the 4 digits as far as I know (e.g. IIRC one of the last few years the procurement was just over 900 units).

[Pannonian]

Certainly, expensive munitions but looking at the ammo depots and C2 nodes hit since these have arrived, I'd say worth the cost. Even with Western support Ukraine won't get a quantitative edge over Russia in artillery but if range and precision are better for Ukraine, they can cause a lot of hurt.



I agree, however if I were the commander on the Southern front, I'd do night strikes against docked naval ships, subs, and harbor facilities in Sevastapol first alongside their airbases too. This together with a destruction of Kerch Strait bridge would really hurt Russia logistically. I imagine over the next few weeks we'll see a lot of railyards going up in smoke as Russia still seems bound to these for supply. I also think that if the Black Sea fleet ends up forced to hole up along the Caucasus coastline that'd limit the ability to do effective cruise missile or shore bombardment roles if the Ukrainians end up successfully pushing south and east of Kherson.

Curious if we'll see a larger and more successful offensive by Ukraine in the south given that Zelensky has ordered it to be liberated. So far Ukraine hasn't been able to muster the numbers and effects to do more than nibble away at village after village.

Also, curious as to Russia's next offensive, I think they'll preserve what strength they have right now to try and blunt any Ukrainian counter-offensive and then push to take the whole of Donetsk and if possible, push on Mikolayiv.

Fall and winter aren't too far away and I'm worried what further gas supply shenanigans Russia will do to Ukraine and Europe as a whole.

What's the most effective way of isolating Crimea, and is it feasible for Ukraine to do it?

[Montmorency]

A series of polls by Rating Group show that Ukraine and Russia are now very different societies. Ukraine does not share Vladimir Putin’s complexes about the last 30 years. Over the last decade, positive answers to the question ‘Do you regret the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991?’ have been on a rising trend in Russia, up from 55% in 2010 to 63% in 2022. In Ukraine, the number was not too far behind in 2010, at 46%; but it is now only 11%. Moreover, under Zelensky and his predecessor, President Petro Poroshenko (2014–19), Ukraine has successfully shifted to a ‘more European’ way of commemorating the Second World War. In contrast to Putin’s pobedobesie (‘victory frenzy’, the obsession with 1945), 80% of Ukrainian respondents defined 9 May as a day for ‘remembrance of war victims’ in 2022, while only 15% saw it as ‘Victory Day’. In 2012, the figures were the other way around in Ukraine: only 18% referred to remembrance, while 74% still thought of victory. Victory in ‘World War Two’, rather than the Great Patriotic War – the Soviet framing – is also placed in a broader and more national context. All historical ‘fighters for independence’ are now placed in the same pantheon, including not only nation-building stalwarts like the Cossack hero Bohdan Khmelnytsky and the historian Mykhailo Hrushevsky, but also previously more controversial figures like Ivan Mazepa, who lost the Battle of Poltava in 1709 (up from 44% in 2012 to 76% in 2022); Symon Petliura, the controversial leader of the short-lived Ukrainian People’s Republic in 1918–19, who allied with Poland and whose supporters committed pogroms (up from 26% in 2012 to 49% in 2022); and even the interwar nationalist leader Stepan Bandera (up from 22% in 2012 to 74% in 2022).

Reminder of how utterly and irrevocably Putin and the Russian ultranationalists wrecked Slavic unity and, ironically, all positive vestiges of the Soviet legacy.

If one looks at it objectively, Putin is one of the worst Russian leaders of all time. Little needs to be said of the plundering and feudalization of Russia's long-term socioeconomic prospects, but just refer to Russia's foreign relations with its former co-republics.

Belarus: Puppet state, so long as the extremely-unpopular local strongman can be kept in power
Ukraine: Mortal enemy
Baltics: Mortal enemy
Moldova: Worsening relations
Georgia: Adversarial
Armenia: Trapped between Turkey and Azerbaijan, desperate for any Russian assistance, offers little in return
Azerbaijan: Increasingly distant, increasingly self-assertive in the region
Central 'Stans: All openly balancing Russia with China AFAICT


Russia is in a worse position with essentially every former SSR compared to the beginning of Putin's rise to power. To be fair to him, he wasn't alone in devising Russia's course; the entire elite power structure of Russia has long deserved the 1918 treatment.

[spmetla]

Russia is in a worse position with essentially every former SSR compared to the beginning of Putin's rise to power. To be fair to him, he wasn't alone in devising Russia's course; the entire elite power structure of Russia has long deserved the 1918 treatment.

His fixation on "hard power" and trying to oppose 'the West' instead of use its better aspects for advancement have been really hinderances for Russia's sphere. I don't think he gets that a bit more soft power and using the cultural and historical ties could lead to a much more voluntary set of nations looking to Moscow. He's just gathering allies that are in opposition to the US lead world order, not allies working toward any other goal at all.
Looking at Kazakhstan's recent statements in opposition to recognizing Russia's breakaway 'republics' in Ukraine are a good indicator of how awry the invasion has gone. Even if Putin took all the Ukraine at this point it'd still be a strategic loss as Russia will remain in a poorer position in the world than it was a year ago. It's only a stronger position if he looks at the map of Europe like a 'Hearts of Iron' player which is not realistic for today's world, something that caused most of Europe to completely mistake posturing for negotiations which were actual preparations for invasion. Russia is not North Korea.

The PRC has definately played the game better.

[Montmorency]

I hear Romania is restarting 152mm production. @edyzmedieval




oooooo

Tangential rant: Let's be frank re: the "simplicity" (cf. quantity) argument that the essayist dismissively touches on. Aircraft, given their cost, numbers, and absolute complexity, are currently just platforms where technology is going to produce more of an edge than in almost any other military application. While for the sake of example there's probably no real procurement, technical, or logistical cost advantage at scale for, say, buying 5 T-64BV over a single T-90M, as ground vehicles the former can probably perform at 80% relative to the latter in a cumulative sense for intended MBT roles. They will both have similar speed, maneuverability, and vulnerability on the full-spectrum modern battlefield, and they both even arm the same 2A46M 125mm cannon. So in abstract there's a case for maintaining a cheap old workhorse for mass mobilization in a domain like armor to supplement the crack gear and personnel.

But if you could substitute a wing, or even two, of F-104 for a squadron of F-35, would you make that choice? The technological leap between second-generation and fifth-generation jet computer and missile technology (and especially stealth where available) is simply incalculably greater than that between second-gen tanks and topline 3rd-gen tank armament, armor, and countermeasures, which combat would undoubtedly reveal. What would be the point of, for example, swarming F-104s against a squadron of F-35s if it's not implausible that the F35s can standoff engage and destroy all of the F-104s with zero loss? Because that's what technological disparity can bring in the air.

(These might be videogamish matchup examples - one more than the other - but they serve to illustrate the cross-differences between Quality vs. Quantity branches)

Arguments about the need to recall the lessons of industrial warfare are essential without taking them to literally require a return to thousands of turboprop plane and welded-steel tank units! It just indicates a need to rebalance between desired capabilities and expected aggregate survivability and availability (or lack thereof) in large-scale conflict. Contemporary doctrines will have moved on properly with extant conditions in most respects.

[edyzmedieval]

I hear Romania is restarting 152mm production. @edyzmedieval

Correct, we still use the 152mm howitzer so restarting production for those shells is something that's also in our benefit at least temporarily.

ROMARM (Romanian arms manufacturer - owned by the state) is producing a good number of ammo supplies, shells & other equipment, both for old standards (7.62) and also for NATO standards. (5.56)