My prediction from last year is about a mil attack against Ukraine from Russia to happen in 2022
My prediction from some days ago is that a military attack will happen anytime between next week to next month.
Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
My prediction from some days ago is that a military attack will happen anytime between next week to next month.
How is this nonsense even possible? If that report is to be believed then it means Russia's OPSEC is ridiculously bad and is filled with double-agents or traitors. And we're talking about the same U.S. that was unable to accurately predict or foretold the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle and the ensuing collapse of then Ghani administration.
For some reason, when it comes to Russia and Putin, the western or U.S. intelligence reporting seems to know and understand the motive and intentions of the country and it's leader without fail. And more often than not this stupendous assumptions aren't challenged or receive any pushbacks from the media who's job is supposed to challenge their government's overly optimistic pie-in-the sky projections or interpretations. Haven't we or they learned from their strategic intelligence failures from over the last 20 or so years see Iraq WMD, Saddam's dubious and false connection to Osama Bid Laden, Yellow cake from Niger, Syria chemical weapons attack etc..
Just a joke, don't take it seriously.
Russia will keep the heat around Ukraine for a month, exercising with Belarus, drawing more US assets and even troops in.
Then China will send ships and aircraft buzzing around Taiwan for a few months.
Then Russia will heat up Ukraine again.
Maybe Iran will warm up the gulf.
Maybe NK will warm up SK.
and so on and so on.
In the mean time, US will be busy re-deploying their assets, reaffirming their global commitment.
Russia will keep the heat around Ukraine for a month, exercising with Belarus, drawing more US assets and even troops in.
Then China will send ships and aircraft buzzing around Taiwan for a few months.
Then Russia will heat up Ukraine again.
Maybe Iran will warm up the gulf.
Maybe NK will warm up SK.
and so on and so on.
In the mean time, US will be busy re-deploying their assets, reaffirming their global commitment.
Yesterday, just before going to sleep I wrote a lengthy comment in response to another user but then as I was clicking "post reply" somehow the entire body of text was replaced with ";c".
I blame a Russian cyberattack!
-----------
General remarks:
When discussing a hypothetical military action we should remember about the spectrum of available solutions and that a full-scale invasion is the least likely option. To paraphrase Sun Tzu "the greatest victory is to defeat your enemy's plans without drawing the sword".
Most observers view Russian buildup as proactive. My view is that it is reactive deterrence. Continuing buildup is the raising of the stakes to make the threat of force an effective tool without resorting to the use of force. Russians might be relatively less casualty averse than Americans but they were averse to 100 dead in the 2008 war against Georgia. This aversion is where 2014 tactics came from.
This is what the situation looks to me as an external observer using game theory and reflexive management theory to interpret events and predict outcomes:
Ukraine is not an opponent but a trap. Russia needs to disable this trap without walking into it. The buildup is a show of force intended to convince the trap to malfunction.
However, I have no understanding of the internal power struggle or motivations of Russian leadership and the weakness always lies with the flawed and irrational human.
I think that so far China has used a much better strategy than Russia. Russia's internal and economic condition reflects the inability of Russian establishments to think out of their own box of covert and military operations and that this is Russia's greatest weakness in the ongoing conflict.
In my view the most effective counter to American strategy would be a (counter-intuitive) revealing your own cards when they are weaker than your opponent's. The current game is a meta-game. It is not about winning the stakes on the table but about revealing the opponent's intention about the game. America is pretending to want everyone at the table to get along and have fun. The winning move is therefore to show that it was all a set-up to grab the stakes under the pretense of fun. The only way to do it is to give America the opportunity to grab them. If Russia does this instead to deny the stakes it will be ejected from the table and America will still play for the stakes.
I think Russia might not be seeing this (counter-intuitive) play because the core of Russian establishment is composed of "siloviks" who want to "win" or see the opponent "lose" instead of just be content with the opponent not winning. Kutuzov is never enough when you need Sun Tzu.
I want to be wrong but so far I've seen enough to suspect that the truth is somewhere inbetween. Russia knows they shouldn't do anything but the temptation might be too great.
I make no predictions. I don't know anything.
So in the meantime I will try to expand the thinking about potential solutions available to Russia and present a hypothetical scenario suggested by a Polish geopolitical scholar Leszek Sykulski.
This scenario assumes that Russia will attempt to achieve maximum effect with minimal casualties to both its own and Ukrainian side. It mirrors the operations in Crimea and Donbas in 2014. It also utilizes the amphibious ships recently transferred to the Black Sea.
-------
1. Crimean scenario - Russian capture of the Serpents' Island
It's a small island with just 100 people (servicemembers and families) in one settlement for the purpose of achieving legal "island" status for the purpose of claiming continental shelf and EEZ.
Capture of this island would provide Russia with a claim to territorial waters as well as EEZ that cuts off Ukraine from the rest of the Black Sea. Air defense systems placed on the island will provide similar projection into NATO airspace as in Kaliningrad.
The island could also be a staging ground for any operation in Budjak region.
This is relevant in terms of Russia inspiring insurgency in Ukraine. It is better to inspire and sustain insurgency than to fight it as Russians demonstrated in 2014. There is no reason to expect that this logic would be abandoned now.
The main principle of starting insurgencies is forcing populations against each other through the use of provocateurs. Russia can provoke an attack against Ukrainian nationalist populations or Ukrainian institutions to cause a violent reaction which will force minorities to fight back in self defense.
2. Donbas scenario - Russian-aided secession of Budjak
This is the ethnic composition of Budjak:
Cities in Budjak:
Note that Budjak is separated from the rest of Ukraine and Odessa oblast by two narrow areas which can be easily captured. Those areas lie at the mouth of Dniester and the entry of the inlet into the Black Sea, in the immediate proximity of Moldova and the breakaway region of Transnistria. Both Moldova and Transnistria are cut off from the sea by Ukrainian territory and any new political entity governing Budjak could offer better conditions for trade and transit.
Note the Gaugazia region inside Moldova. It is the region inhabited by the Gaugaz people who form a minority in Budjak.
The map below shows the situation and scale.
This is the railway bridge connecting both sides of the inlet in Zatoka:
The Ukrainian military has two garrisons - one in Odessa region with several units including many National Guards public security battalions and another in Budjak in Bolhrad - the 45th Air Assault Brigade which is a light mechanized force with three battalions (BTR-3), an artillery battalion (2S1 and D-30 122mm guns and BM-21) and a tank company (10x T-80).
Recently ships from Caspian, Northern and Baltic fleets have arrived in the Black Sea. In total Russia has available:
Again, this is not a prediction but an example of an operation that could be performed with limited resources to achieve disproportioate effect.
I would expect Russia to think along these lines when planning kinetic operations as this matches the current doctrine and everything we've seen since 2014. But as always the flawed human is the weakest link. And that includes grumpy wizards like me.
No Russian cyber attack this time. I hope you find this speculation interesting. Take care.
I blame a Russian cyberattack!
-----------
General remarks:
When discussing a hypothetical military action we should remember about the spectrum of available solutions and that a full-scale invasion is the least likely option. To paraphrase Sun Tzu "the greatest victory is to defeat your enemy's plans without drawing the sword".
Most observers view Russian buildup as proactive. My view is that it is reactive deterrence. Continuing buildup is the raising of the stakes to make the threat of force an effective tool without resorting to the use of force. Russians might be relatively less casualty averse than Americans but they were averse to 100 dead in the 2008 war against Georgia. This aversion is where 2014 tactics came from.
This is what the situation looks to me as an external observer using game theory and reflexive management theory to interpret events and predict outcomes:
Ukraine is not an opponent but a trap. Russia needs to disable this trap without walking into it. The buildup is a show of force intended to convince the trap to malfunction.
However, I have no understanding of the internal power struggle or motivations of Russian leadership and the weakness always lies with the flawed and irrational human.
I think that so far China has used a much better strategy than Russia. Russia's internal and economic condition reflects the inability of Russian establishments to think out of their own box of covert and military operations and that this is Russia's greatest weakness in the ongoing conflict.
In my view the most effective counter to American strategy would be a (counter-intuitive) revealing your own cards when they are weaker than your opponent's. The current game is a meta-game. It is not about winning the stakes on the table but about revealing the opponent's intention about the game. America is pretending to want everyone at the table to get along and have fun. The winning move is therefore to show that it was all a set-up to grab the stakes under the pretense of fun. The only way to do it is to give America the opportunity to grab them. If Russia does this instead to deny the stakes it will be ejected from the table and America will still play for the stakes.
I think Russia might not be seeing this (counter-intuitive) play because the core of Russian establishment is composed of "siloviks" who want to "win" or see the opponent "lose" instead of just be content with the opponent not winning. Kutuzov is never enough when you need Sun Tzu.
I want to be wrong but so far I've seen enough to suspect that the truth is somewhere inbetween. Russia knows they shouldn't do anything but the temptation might be too great.
I make no predictions. I don't know anything.
So in the meantime I will try to expand the thinking about potential solutions available to Russia and present a hypothetical scenario suggested by a Polish geopolitical scholar Leszek Sykulski.
This scenario assumes that Russia will attempt to achieve maximum effect with minimal casualties to both its own and Ukrainian side. It mirrors the operations in Crimea and Donbas in 2014. It also utilizes the amphibious ships recently transferred to the Black Sea.
-------
1. Crimean scenario - Russian capture of the Serpents' Island
It's a small island with just 100 people (servicemembers and families) in one settlement for the purpose of achieving legal "island" status for the purpose of claiming continental shelf and EEZ.
Capture of this island would provide Russia with a claim to territorial waters as well as EEZ that cuts off Ukraine from the rest of the Black Sea. Air defense systems placed on the island will provide similar projection into NATO airspace as in Kaliningrad.
The island could also be a staging ground for any operation in Budjak region.
This is relevant in terms of Russia inspiring insurgency in Ukraine. It is better to inspire and sustain insurgency than to fight it as Russians demonstrated in 2014. There is no reason to expect that this logic would be abandoned now.
The main principle of starting insurgencies is forcing populations against each other through the use of provocateurs. Russia can provoke an attack against Ukrainian nationalist populations or Ukrainian institutions to cause a violent reaction which will force minorities to fight back in self defense.
2. Donbas scenario - Russian-aided secession of Budjak
This is the ethnic composition of Budjak:
Cities in Budjak:
- Bilhorod-Dnistrovskiy - 63% Ukrainian, 28% Russian( 54%speaks Russian)
- Izmail - 38% Ukrainian, 43% Russian, 10% Bulgarian ( 74% speaks Russian)
- Kilia -42% Ukrainian, 36% Russian, 15% Moldovan ( 55% speaks Russian)
- Artsyz - 26% Ukrainian, 30% Russian, 18% Bulgarian ( 66% speaks Russian)
- Bolhrad - 11% Russian,13% Ukrainian, 48% Bulgarian, 17% Gagauz ( 49% speaks Russian, 33% Bulgarian)
Note that Budjak is separated from the rest of Ukraine and Odessa oblast by two narrow areas which can be easily captured. Those areas lie at the mouth of Dniester and the entry of the inlet into the Black Sea, in the immediate proximity of Moldova and the breakaway region of Transnistria. Both Moldova and Transnistria are cut off from the sea by Ukrainian territory and any new political entity governing Budjak could offer better conditions for trade and transit.
Note the Gaugazia region inside Moldova. It is the region inhabited by the Gaugaz people who form a minority in Budjak.
The map below shows the situation and scale.
This is the railway bridge connecting both sides of the inlet in Zatoka:
The Ukrainian military has two garrisons - one in Odessa region with several units including many National Guards public security battalions and another in Budjak in Bolhrad - the 45th Air Assault Brigade which is a light mechanized force with three battalions (BTR-3), an artillery battalion (2S1 and D-30 122mm guns and BM-21) and a tank company (10x T-80).
Recently ships from Caspian, Northern and Baltic fleets have arrived in the Black Sea. In total Russia has available:
- 1 Ivan Gren-class large amphibious ship (6000t) with capacity for: 13 main battle tanks or 36 BTR, 300 troops or 1500 tons of cargo
- 3 Alligator-class large amphibious ships (5000t) with capacity for: 20main battle tanks and 440 troops or 47 BTR and 440 troops or 52 army trucks and 440 troops or 1000 tons of cargo
- 6 Ropucha-class medium amphibious ships (4000t) with capacity for: 10 main battle tanks and 340 troops or 3 main battle tanks, 3 2S9 Nona-S, 5 MT-LB, 4 army trucks and 313 troops or 20 army trucks and 150 troops or 500 tons of cargo
- 9 Serna and Ondatra-class small amphibious craft (100t) with capacity for: 1 main battle tank or 2 BTR or 92 troops or 50 tons of cargo
Again, this is not a prediction but an example of an operation that could be performed with limited resources to achieve disproportioate effect.
I would expect Russia to think along these lines when planning kinetic operations as this matches the current doctrine and everything we've seen since 2014. But as always the flawed human is the weakest link. And that includes grumpy wizards like me.
No Russian cyber attack this time. I hope you find this speculation interesting. Take care.
Well, it's not "unrelated" because that's basically what I was saying. Russia wants to avoid using "bombs and bullets" to achieve its objectives here. Because that option might trigger sanctions on an already stressed economy, and it won't actually solve Russia's long-term problem vis a vis NATO.
Remember the context of this whole drama over the last 20 years: NATO was threatening Russia directly, by expanding Eastwards. Russia then flipped the tables, and went after NATO indirectly, by luring Germany away from NATO, with gas-dependency. It's actually quite brilliant.
Now to the present, Russia already achieved 2 wins, without firing a shot:
- The US used the excuse of a "possibly imminent" Russian invasion to pull out forces from Ukraine, basically abandoning the country that it is trying to induct in NATO. Even Ukraine is now accusing the US of being hysterical.
- Berlin is still not defending America's line, signaling a major crack in NATO, and this is what Russia actually wants. The Economist published an article a few days ago with the headline: "Germany’s new chancellor dithers in the face of Russia’s threats."
BTW, US media has completely lost its mind.
I mean wtf does "possibly imminent" even mean? lolz.
Last edited:
Got to say that the US has handled this pretty well.
The way they have played this, if Putin attacks, Russia gets crippling economic sanctions which means another lost decade for the Russian economy. Plus Europe's/Germany's economy will fall and cause capital flight to the US treasuries.
If Putin backs down it will be seen as a humiliation and also make Eastern Europe to see the US as a worthy ally.
Really, I can't see any way the US gets out of this damaged. Its all positives for them. If I was Biden now, I will most likely be praying that Putin attacks Ukraine. This way the US would be the biggest winner while Russia/EU would be the losers.
For Russia, the only way they avoid this is if they convince Germany to stay on their side (doubtful) or if Russia finds an unorthodox way to deal with Ukraine ("little green men" Crimea style)
The way they have played this, if Putin attacks, Russia gets crippling economic sanctions which means another lost decade for the Russian economy. Plus Europe's/Germany's economy will fall and cause capital flight to the US treasuries.
If Putin backs down it will be seen as a humiliation and also make Eastern Europe to see the US as a worthy ally.
Really, I can't see any way the US gets out of this damaged. Its all positives for them. If I was Biden now, I will most likely be praying that Putin attacks Ukraine. This way the US would be the biggest winner while Russia/EU would be the losers.
For Russia, the only way they avoid this is if they convince Germany to stay on their side (doubtful) or if Russia finds an unorthodox way to deal with Ukraine ("little green men" Crimea style)
That comment was about the war the West was waging on Russia by expanding NATO toward Russia's borders. That's what I meant by waging war "without bombs and bullets." It's partly due to that that I think that Russia has little to no prospects of improving its position without going to war (the bombs and bullets kind). It's been cornered.
I put both comments in the same post because I don't like to make posts back to back. Given the confusion it caused, I'll stop doing that.
None of those are all that relevant. The only immediate thing that may be important is the Iran Nuclear Deal.
Unsurprisingly, it seems like everyone (not just here) has forgotten about Iran except for niche parts of Western/Israel/Iran Media, and US Senators.
According to reports, the negotiations for the Iran nuclear deal are having progress and we have entered the final stage. It is likely that we might have a finalised deal within this month
- Status