Ukrainian Conflict 2014 - ? (Take II)

gandalf

And the Russian "Rebels" are off again. Shelling areas near Mariupol. It's not surprising as it has always been the aim of the Russian forces to try and force a corridor to supply the illegally annexed land in the Crimea with rest of Russia.

On Sunday tank and mortar rounds pounded Shyrokyne, a village held by government forces near Mariupol, a strategic government-held port city.

The OSCE observers said it was the most intense shelling since fighting began in the area in mid-February.

Heavy weapons including tanks were spotted in rebel-held areas nearby, the OSCE said. Such weapons were supposed to have been pulled back under the truce agreed in February.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32478933

Ceasefires mean nothing to Russia. If they can't control their dogs then they have to be hurt more via sanctions.

Gatling

As part of the current Ukrainian government reforms to tackle corruption they targeted the notorious corrupted traffic police which is currently been replaced with a new force 20,000 + applied for 2000 positions .
And a massive pay increase was put in place for new officers from $80 a month to $500pm to help fight the past corruption.

Many reports pre yanukovic ousting suggested the corrupted traffic police was stopping and fining drivers across Ukraine on a near industrial scale .

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2015/04/28/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-putin-real-reform-begins-to-take-hold-in-ukraine/

robindch

gandalf wrote: »

Ceasefires mean nothing to Russia.

Even the Second World War ceasefire seems to be in some doubt now - Finland announced that it's dropped a series of depth-charges in its own territorial waters in the vicinity of unknown, unauthorized underwater contacts:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32498790

BBC wrote:

But the defence minister did not say whether he thought Russia was involved.

Perhaps Putin will deny the presence of little green submarines, and claim that it was just a few submariners "off on holiday" in Finland.

BoJack Horseman

Finland never had much of a navy.
Sweden are well on the way to fully dismembering their navy.

Both may regret that.

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Finland never had much of a navy.
Sweden are well on the way to fully dismembering their navy.

Both may regret that.

I get the feeling both will increase military spending pretty quick and apply for nato membership.
They both have plenty of allies who will back them if Russia decides to get overly aggressive

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

I get the feeling both will increase military spending pretty quick and apply for nato membership.
They both have plenty of allies who will back them if Russia decides to get overly aggressive

I don't think either country increased spending this year.

And though the public opinion gap on joining NATO has narrowed, there is zero inclination to join NATO at the moment.

That may change of course, but for now, the status quo remains with neither nation effectively able to protect themselves.

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I don't think either country increased spending this year.

And though the public opinion gap on joining NATO has narrowed, there is zero inclination to join NATO at the moment.

That may change of course, but for now, the status quo remains with neither nation effectively able to protect themselves.

The swedes have very capable and well versed forces along with the Danes who will likely back them and vice versa,
But it will be next year before any noticable change in spending most likely it will be a slow process to avoid anything that may look like there afraid or in a panic

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

The swedes have very capable and well versed forces

Do they?

The much admired & impressive looking 'Visby class' corvettes are a case in point.

Fewer in number than initially intended.
Much less equipped than initially intended (including in their ASW capability)
The accompanying ASW helos to accompany them were scrapped!

Their navy is a shadow of its former self in both numbers & capability (as are most European navies).

along with the Danes who will likely back them and vice versa,

Why?
There is no mutual defence pact between Sweden & Denmark.

As a neutral country, Sweden doesn't have a defence pact with anyone!

As with most European nations, they are complacent.

IrishTrajan

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There is no mutual defence pact between Sweden & Denmark.
As a neutral country, Sweden doesn't have a defence pact with anyone!
As with most European nations, they are complacent.

If I remember correctly, the Swedish have been pushing for deeper integration between Nordic countries, including joint defence forces.

In order for Russia to threaten Sweden, they'd need to go through Finnish (which would be a death sentence) or Norwegian (which would be a death sentence) territory. Russia lacks the amphibious assault capabilities (thanks, France, for not selling them the Mistrals) to truly threaten them.

If Russia wanted to take out the Nordic States, they'd need to commit a lot of troops.

BoJack Horseman

IrishTrajan wrote: »

If I remember correctly, the Swedish have been pushing for deeper integration between Nordic countries, including joint defence forces.

more joint exercises & common procurement endeavours is not within a million miles of a common defence pact.

In order for Russia to threaten Sweden, they'd need to go through Finnish

Its a straight line from Kaliningrad & St Petersburg to Sweden?

Russia lacks the amphibious assault capabilities (thanks, France, for not selling them the Mistrals) to truly threaten them.

OK, playing armchair general.

Any conflict between the Czar Shirtless & Europe would not be about land conquest.... Those days are over, its redundant, costs too much & Russia has plenty of land.

The goal of such a conflict from Putin's perspective:
Economic devastation for the EU.
Ensuring European military military impotence...
Then... Political supplicance to Moscow via treaty and/or puppet governments.

These aims don't require the conquest of vast land that Russia doesn't need anyway.

The Nordic states can be militarily & economically nullified within days by existing Russian forces, invasion wouldn't be required.

Lemming

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Any conflict between the Czar Shirtless & Europe would not be about land conquest.... Those days are over, its redundant, costs too much & Russia has plenty of land.

The goal of such a conflict from Putin's perspective:
Economic devastation for the EU.
Ensuring European military military impotence...
Then... Political supplicance to Moscow via treaty and/or puppet governments.

These aims don't require the conquest of vast land that Russia doesn't need anyway.

The Nordic states can be militarily & economically nullified within days by existing Russian forces, invasion wouldn't be required.

Whilst the general jist of your armchair analysis I agree with, the reality is in order to roll through a country to nullify its military capabilities requires holding land; at least long enough to achieve ones objectives and withdraw forces safely. That means a massive ground-footprint and the very real prospect of having to face insurgency at the same time.

Edit: all the while ensuring you've got enough forces to defend yourself whilst you royally p1ss other people off.

BoJack Horseman

Lemming wrote: »

Whilst the general jist of your armchair analysis I agree with, the reality is in order to roll through a country to nullify its military capabilities requires...

Just a single anti-runway bomb/cruise missile, (effectively a cluster munition).

That's all.... Just destroy a runway & couple of hangers & an airbase is gone.... The 3 Scandinavian states have less than 12-ish between them, not tricky.

Naval wise, Norway for example has 3 naval bases, the others probably similar.

Just a one/two day effort by the Russian northern fleets submarines can render all Norwegian ports/airfields non-operational with almost zero warning & no chance to retaliate.
(Norway has 5 air-defence frigates but only has the man power to operate 2 of them!)

Why ground troops are needed to guard smouldering craters I don't know.

(I would however use some of the 30,000 Russian special forces to seize/render inert Norwegian gas facilities before extracting them)

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Just a single anti-runway bomb/cruise missile, (effectively a cluster munition).

That's all.... Just destroy a runway & couple of hangers & an airbase is gone.... The 3 Scandinavian states have less than 12-ish between them, not tricky.

Naval wise, Norway for example has 3 naval bases, the others probably similar.

Just a one/two day effort by the Russian northern fleets submarines can render all Norwegian ports/airfields non-operational with almost zero warning & no chance to retaliate.
(Norway has 5 air-defence frigates but only has the man power to operate 2 of them!)

Why ground troops are needed to guard smouldering craters I don't know.

(I would however use some of the 30,000 Russian special forces to seize/render inert Norwegian gas facilities before extracting them)

Take Sweden for example take out there runways they will use public roads and high ways for there airforces to launch aircover .
I've been in Sweden on several occasions and witnessed several saab fighter jets taken off and landing on strips of public roads pretty awesome sight actually.
The Scandinavians countries would resort to gurilla tactics they were never set up to take part in a protracted ground war

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

Take Sweden for example take our there runways they will use public roads and high ways for there airforces to launch aircover

With what?

Vlad's opening salvo has destroyed most of Sweden's inventory of just 87 aircraft.
The Swedish government wouldn't risk more being now suicidally outnumbered by Russian jets.

The Scandinavians countries would resort to gurilla tactics

What use are brave partisans against a submarine 400kms away?

As I said, with their ports/airfields knocked out Sweden becomes militarily inert & of no threat.
Why bother with a ground offensive, they are already defeated?

(And I say all this as one wishful that Europe would take defence seriously).

crushproof

Gatling wrote: »

As part of the current Ukrainian government reforms to tackle corruption they targeted the notorious corrupted traffic police which is currently been replaced with a new force 20,000 + applied for 2000 positions .
And a massive pay increase was put in place for new officers from $80 a month to $500pm to help fight the past corruption.

Many reports pre yanukovic ousting suggested the corrupted traffic police was stopping and fining drivers across Ukraine on a near industrial scale .

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2015/04/28/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-putin-real-reform-begins-to-take-hold-in-ukraine/

They did the same in Georgia a few years ago. Fired the entire force and trained in new cops.
It was an instant success and drove down corruption among the traffic police. Good to see Ukraine doing it...hopefully they can afford to pay the wages!

Lemming

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Why ground troops are needed to guard smouldering craters I don't know.

(I would however use some of the 30,000 Russian special forces to seize/render inert Norwegian gas facilities before extracting them)

So, strategically what would Russia have gained? Besides incurred costs and destroyed any political goodwill left around much of the world. They would still then have the rest of Europe to deal with, and all they've done is given NATO carte-blance support to use Finnish & Swedish territory, and/or expedited those countries entry into NATO.

Any attempt to roll up Norway, Denmark, or the Baltic states would end in full-on NATO engagement. And that is a fight Russia cannot win (and that's before anyone starts trying to willy-wave with ICBMs ... )

BoJack Horseman

Lemming wrote: »

So, strategically what would Russia have gained?

in our scenario, a scandi campaign would be part of a larger war most likely.... It would secure Russia's right flank allowing the Northern Fleet to threaten the much weaker Royal Navy.

Besides incurred costs

Jet fuel, & cruise missiles.... Not too costly.

destroyed any political goodwill left around much of the world.

In Vladi's end game, I imagine global opinion doesn't count for anything.

They would still then have the rest of Europe to deal[/quote]
Indeed, such as it is.

Remove the scandi's & the Royal Navy is under threat. Its weaker than the Russian northern fleet, so would struggle.

with, and all they've done is given NATO carte-blance support to use Finnish & Swedish territory

,
Their runways & ports lie in ruins.... NATO wouldn't bother and must more likely focus on defending the rest of the Baltic's & north sea.

[/quote]and/or expedited those countries entry into NATO.[/quote]
Granted it would.

And that is a fight Russia cannot win

I know we are just chatting & its all hypothetical.

I do think Russia is weaker than it boasts.
But Europe is much much weaker than it appears on paper.

In the Mediterranean theatre, Russia is weaker than NATO for sure.

In the north sea though, its a different matter.

Lemming

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

in our scenario, a scandi campaign would be part of a larger war most likely.... It would secure Russia's right flank allowing the Northern Fleet to threaten the much weaker Royal Navy.

.. SNIP..

Remove the scandi's & the Royal Navy is under threat. Its weaker than the Russian northern fleet, so would struggle.

In that context, Vlad wouldn't simply be able to roll up the Nordics anyway as forces would have been dispersed when hostilites commenced, barring the outcome of any "first strike" opportunity. And whilst the RN is not what it once was, the russian northern fleet is also a shadow of its former itself, bar its sub-surface fleet which whilst again a shadow of its former self is the most formidable component part left. And all of that discounts the pertinent fact that if there was a wider war going on, that would involve NATO and you can bet your bottom dollar that the US Atlantic fleet would also be sat in the North Atlantic to contribute to pounding the bejaysus out of any Russian vessels & aircraft in sight.

BoJack Horseman

Lemming wrote: »

And whilst the RN is not what it once was, the russian northern fleet is also a shadow of its former itself, bar its sub-surface fleet which whilst again a shadow of its former self is the most formidable component part left.

Both are shadows, but the Northern fleet is both qualitively superior & in greater numbers.

And all of that discounts the pertinent fact that if there was a wider war going on

Of course you are right.

My hypothesis that Russia is stronger discounts (perhaps unfairly) the US.

I would like Europe to be strong enough for US aid to be unnecessary & for the KGB megalomaniac to stew on his golden throne fearful of threatening Europe.

(I'm also a little sceptical as to the strength of the alliance when the chips are down)

Lemming

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I would like Europe to be strong enough for US aid to be unnecessary & for the KGB megalomaniac to stew on his golden throne fearful of threatening Europe.

No arguments there.

As an aside musing; whilst the Russian northern fleet may be greater in number, technologically Russia has stood still for the last twenty years generally speaking, and more importantly whilst the RN has been continuously active, the Russian fleet has not until recent years meaning loss of skills & knowledge due to inactivity, alongside whatever poor maintenance of vessels has occurred due to lack of funds.

(I'm also a little sceptical as to the strength of the alliance when the chips are down)

I think conventionally speaking, the alliance would be strong; it's only once the spectre of MAD rears its head that individual countries may falter. But, that said; what needs to be recognised though, is that a) if Russia is going to nuke one NATO member, it's going to get hit by someone in retaliation, which brings it back to an "all in" scenario for Russia and consequently everyone else, and b) an unannounced rocket launch is going to have everyone else reaching for the retaliate button anyway. And we'r eback to MAD in that case.

BoJack Horseman

Lemming wrote: »

No arguments there.

Whilst the Russian northern fleet may be greater in number, technologically Russia has stood still for the last twenty years generally speaking, and more importantly whilst the RN has been continuously active, the Russian fleet has not until recent years meaning loss of skills & knowledge due to inactivity, alongside whatever poor maintenance of vessels has occurred due to lack of funds.

Man for man, I'd back a royal navy seaman/soldier over almost any other.

I don't really buy into the technological edge though.

Take the RN's vaunted Type-45 "destroyer".
A case of BAE corporate welfare if ever there was.

- Defensively, just 48 vls, tied to the expensive & unproven 'aster' missile.
- No ASuW capability.
- No strike capability.
- No anti ship capability (until a few were fitted with some salvaged & hopelessly outdated Harpoon missiles).
- just numbering 6

Take away the biblically expensive PAAMs radar system, its a ship little better than a patrol vessel at taking the fight to anyone..... For £1bn a pop..... Easily outclassed offensively by its Russian counterpart.

Then is the 'astute' class sub's, too slow, too loud, too expensive.

I know Europe spent a lot on R&D.... But the results aren't great.

IrishTrajan

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

OK, playing armchair general.

Any conflict between the Czar Shirtless & Europe would not be about land conquest.... Those days are over, its redundant, costs too much & Russia has plenty of land.

The goal of such a conflict from Putin's perspective:
Economic devastation for the EU.
Ensuring European military military impotence...
Then... Political supplicance to Moscow via treaty and/or puppet governments.

These aims don't require the conquest of vast land that Russia doesn't need anyway.

The Nordic states can be militarily & economically nullified within days by existing Russian forces, invasion wouldn't be required.

And in order to reach those goals, land must be taken and held. Unless you mean Russia is going to start lobbing ballistic missiles, in which case you can bet your ass it will antagonize the rest of the EU into a military armament campaign.

The taking of land is required to secure control over a region, and that can be incredibly costly. That's why the US doesn't want a war with Iran, that's why the British never wanted a heavy presence in Afghanistan. Ground forces, and the taking of objectives, is always the goal of a war. Whether that is reaching a river to anchor your forces on, or manning outposts to secure a supply line, land must still be taken.

The Russians only gave socks to their soldiers in 2013. They're still using AK47s as service rifles, only giving out their flashy new guns for promotional usage. Their land forces are in poor shape, their naval forces even poorer. The only thing the Russians did right, was trying to maintain as many of their aircraft as possible.

Even so, Norway has tons of MANPADs in the mountainous north, and both Finland's and Sweden's infrastructure is developed to allow them to fighting for as long as possible against Russia.

Like I said, invading Finland or Sweden would be a death trap.

IrishTrajan

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

in our scenario, a scandi campaign would be part of a larger war most likely.... It would secure Russia's right flank allowing the Northern Fleet to threaten the much weaker Royal Navy.

Russia's North Sea fleet is a rust bucket death trap, much like their Baltic Fleet during the Russo-Japanese war.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Remove the scandi's & the Royal Navy is under threat. Its weaker than the Russian northern fleet, so would struggle.

Every time Russian ships leave harbour, they have to have tugboats in case they break down.

Heck, they sat in the mouth of the Seine a couple of weeks ago. They had planned to train in the Atlantic but they didn't want to risk their ships sinking, so they had to just sit in the Seine and practice electronic drills.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Their runways & ports lie in ruins.... NATO wouldn't bother and must more likely focus on defending the rest of the Baltic's & north sea.

Norway, the UK regularly train for British involvement in Norway. The great thing about the Royal Marines (and their Norwegian counterparts) is that they can cover immense distances in short periods of time. Even with small arms, they can do a lot of damage.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I do think Russia is weaker than it boasts.
But Europe is much much weaker than it appears on paper.

I agree with you on this, but I believe the EU is still quite capable of defending itself against Russia.

BoJack Horseman

IrishTrajan wrote: »

And in order to reach those goals, land must be taken and held

The degrading of a countries ports & airports does not require boots on the ground.

Once those links are destroyed, economic/energy strangulation is pretty easy

Russia can leave their tiny armies alone, knowing that neither country has the numbers or mobilisation capability to threaten Russia.

The taking of land is required to secure control over a region

Who said 'control'?

As I said, Putin doesn't want land, he wants power & supplicants to feed his delusion of a new Russian empire.

Destroy ports & airports, the Nordics are militarily disabled & would be in immediate economic difficulty.... Just with a couple hundred missiles.

Ground forces, and the taking of objectives, is always the goal of a war.

depends on the objective.

They're still using AK47s as service rifles,

The Russian armies standard issue rifle was introduced in 1974, the most common variant was introduced in 1991, its more modern than the M-16/M-4 family of rifles used by many nato countries.

Their land forces are in poor shape

So is Europes.

their naval forces even poorer.

Navy is the weak link, but its very strong in places.

Norway has tons of MANPADs

And?
The RBS70 used by all the Nordic states (and Ireland) has a ceiling of 5km.... Its not a deterrent to any bomber at normal operational altitude.

The better 'NAMAS-2' is still a medium range defender & not a major threat to determined attack.

Besides, Norway would likely be plastered by Submarine, not airplane.

both Finland's and Sweden's infrastructure is developed to allow them to fighting for as long as possible against Russia.

Example?

In truth, I can't imagine any civilian infrastructure is built to cope with a P-700's 750kg of high explosives ripping through it.


I don't think the Nordics are likely to be under threat..... But who knows.
Czar Vlad's grip on reality often seems distant.

IrishTrajan

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The degrading of a countries ports & airports does not require boots on the ground.

Once those links are destroyed, economic/energy strangulation is pretty easy

Destroy ports & airports, the Nordics are militarily disabled & would be in immediate economic difficulty.... Just with a couple hundred missiles.

The Rumsfeld Doctrine would disagree with you. Air power requires boots on the ground.

His "economic" strangulation can only occur if he holds resources and logistic hubs. Which would necessitate boots on the ground. Even dropping missiles, they'd require a lot of missiles to account for CEP.

His strangulation would also only be brief, unless he intended to produce mass quantities of missiles in order to continuously knock out infrastructure.


I don't even know what we're arguing about at this point, or how it started...

BoJack Horseman

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I don't even know what we're arguing about at this point, or how it started...

Ha!

Seems like a long time ago.

IrishTrajan

On a semi related note:

The Russians might be crazy, but they make nice videos.

<snip>

Black Swan

IrishTrajan wrote: »

On a semi related note:

The Russians might be crazy, but they make nice videos.

<snip>

MOD: Politics is a discussion forum. A video is not discussion. Please read charter before posting again, especially:

Dr Galen wrote:

Posting a link to a video hosted elsewhere does not constitute discussion. Not everyone is able to watch videos, for technical or other reasons, and points raised on a video are almost impossible to refute. It's OK to link to a video, but it should be accompanied by a detailed summary of its contents and arguments, and you must be prepared to discuss it.

gandalf

Interesting article that appeared yesterday. It was hidden in the bylines of the papers as the main news was the election in the UK and the goosestepping in Moscow.

Russian soldiers are reportedly quitting the army because they've been sent fight in the Ukraine, despite the Kremlin insisting their soldiers are not being dispatched over the border.

.....

The official line from Putin’s government is that any Russian soldier seen in Ukraine is there as a “volunteer”. No one, it says, has been forced to go.

Yet the converse, according to these soldiers and backed up by human rights activists, seems to be true.

Quitting the army is not very common in Russia but former soldiers have quietly begun coming forward to admit that they had. Reuters spoke with five, including two who said that their main reason was not wanting to serve in Ukraine.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-soldiers-quit-over-forced-ukraine-fighting-report-claims-10239348.html

So again the evidence keeps mounting of actual physical Russian involvement in the Ukraine.

BoJack Horseman

What does it say about how terribly managed the Russian army is, that 8-10,000 can just leave work for months on end at leisure.

Or, the reality, that its on orders.

Either way, its bad for Russia.