Ukraine

Taking a detatched view, the USA is basically fighting Russia in Ukraine. They have decided, because of a shortage of "normal" ammunition (both in Ukraine and for export in the USA) to supply cluster munitions, of which they have large stocks.

The failure rate of these things means that when they're used, unexploded "bomblets" remain dangerous for decades. The USA normally exports these things (quite legitimately; it is not a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions) but has a law that the failure ("dud") rate must be less than 1%, to try and avoid "too many" people being killed in years to come. What they are actually exporting to Ukraine has a supposed 2.35% failure rate (although sources such as the New York Times think the rate is much higher - up to 14% - see: "Cluster Weapons U.S. Is Sending Ukraine Often Fail to Detonate" NYT, 6th July).

Now Mr Biden, on the advice of their Department of Defense, has decided to bypass their law made in Congress, and send out non-export-compliant things.

The problem with this is that whilst Russia and Ukraine have both been using cluster munitions (Russia more so), again legitimately (since neither are signatories to the CCM), they have both been somewhat circumspect, but this now gives the Russians (who have - again legitimately - been continuously developing the things for years) an excuse. They can say "Oh, the USA is sending in cluster munitions, so we can now fire as many as we like".

Does that matter? Perhaps one might think "Only to those on the receiving end on either side", but consider that the Russian's cluster munition failure ("dud") rate is said by the USA to be in the region of 30-40% (whether that's correct or not is only really relevant to the later-on consequences, since Russia also has large stocks of these things), and the USA's cluster munitions also have some percentage of failures.

So the comparatively low use of these weapons is likely to increase a lot. It will result in the prescence of big numbers of unexploded sub-munitions all over the place, both hindering Ukraine's fighting, and giving whoever eventually controls the areas they're used in a big, big headache, and resulting in increased civilian wounding and deaths. It's a really nasty problem.

 

Ukraine has been asking for F16 fighter jets for ages, and agreements are coming through slowly to let them have them. So why the delay? I know it takes time to train pilots, prepare infrastructure etc, but they've had time. The Ukrainians have openly said their biggest challenge on the counter offensive is that Russia has better air support, and Ukraine couldn't rush forward even if they could decisively break through Russia's defensive positions, because they'd be running right into territory that the Russian air force can operate in freely.

 

A very interesting observation. I seem to remember reading some statement from (I think) Human Rights Watch, which had appealed to Russia to destroy old cluster munitions, that their request was refused since it would be "too costly".

Perhaps the trend of both sides using up old stuff and testing new will continue. A big mess.

 

Opinion seems to be that it won't make much difference, since neither party can easily operate aircraft because of the amount and efficiency of anti-aircraft systems there. Another development in this action, the only recent one in which each both "sides" have been comparatively well armed; it seems that tanks, ships and aircraft are becoming obsolescent under these circumstances.

 

Ultimately, the decision to use cluster bombs has been taken by Ukraine. They know the risks that the bombs pose to their people, but on balance its a risk they think is worth taking. Ukraine have said that they take responsibilty for dud bomblets, they will maintain records of where they were used and will demine after they have kicked Putin out. Putin will have left many more land mines in Ukraine, so bomblets are the least of their problems. Cluster bombs are the weapon of choice for ousting entrenched troops, which is what Ukraine needs right now.

 

The Ukrainians are running low on air defence capability. If nothing changes, it is only a matter of time before Ukrainian air defences are depleted, and then Ukraine will be largely defenceless. The 'opinion' that F16s would be useless comes from the US, who despite paying lip service, don't really want Ukraine to have them.

There are multiple strategic advantages to Ukraine having F16s. The most obvious is their ability to attack Russian aircraft and ground targets from a highly mobile platform. But that's only one aspect, and the bit that most people focus on. The other advantage is it gives the Russians more work to do. Currently, the Russians have to work out where static or low mobility targets are. If the Ukrainians had F16s, then suddenly Russia has something else to try to locate and track. The usual counter that is based on western thinking. It is that airbases are easy targets, and if you destroy the runway, the planes are useless even if still intact. However that western thinking doesn't work so well when you're fighting someone with the balls the Ukrainians have. They have apparently already demonstrated the ability to very rapidly turn ordinary major roads into makeshift airbases. It's been suggested that the Ukrainians would set up multiple makeshift airbases and move the planes around, so that by the time the Russians work out where they are, they've already relocated.

The Ukrainians are showing incredible ingenuity. They're soaking up NATO tactics, and blending everything they learn with everything they're figuring out for themselves. They're limited only by available hardware. Their drone warfare skills are quite literally cutting edge, better than anyone else's, and improving all the time. They have private companies and even organised groups of enthusiasts playing with technology to see what new things they can do. They're also right up there on the cyber warfare front. This is all of great interest to NATO, who definitely wants Ukraine to join, but not before we squeeze as many new ideas out of them as possible. Give Ukraine fighter jets and better missiles, and they might beat Russia back a bit too quickly, before some of Ukraine's new tech and tactical experiments have yielded good data. So I suspect the think might be to give them just enough to keep them going, but keep the situation desperate for them, so we can study what they do that works, and how the Russians respond.

 

Apparently, Ukraine now has tank parity with Putin.

 

I really cant think NATO or America are using this war as a way of trying things out, in some strange way and holding back just to prolong it all.

They are holding back, yes, but that's because the real high tech stuff cant be used, its a limited war, as they are these days.

Give Ukraine F35s and they wouldn't need runways, but that's not going to happen.

War always brings ingenuity and the chance to try different things and tactics but nobody prolongs a war just to steal ideas.

 

I'm not convinced. If we ignore the human aspect, which lets face it, few governments give a stuff about, there are many things to be gained by prolonging it.

The share price in defence companies will be on the up for a start. Meanwhile Russia, a long time unofficial enemy of the US, is being ground down financially and politically. When Trump was still in power he was quite up front about his annoyance that other NATO members were not contributing enough. A long drawn out war is already making several NATO member nations rethink their military spending. A secondary benefit of grinding Russia down is it makes them less interesting to China, a nation several governments have openly admitted poses a threat (for political reasons they avoid the word threat in favour of words like challenge). Outside of military or political aspects, the supply chain challenges affecting grain, veg oils, and fertilisers from eastern Europe are really pushing profits up for some companies who I can say with certainty (because I work for one) are profiteering. More profit means more tax income. And then there's the distraction. Both the US and Britain are now paying heavily for mistakes made during covid. Inflation is through the roof, at least in part due to all the free money they gave out, and in the UK at least there was a lot of noise from disgruntled people about various inappropriate government behaviours. I'm sure other countries have similar issues. There's nothing like a good long difficult war with the constant threat of being nuked to distract people from more domestic issues. No point finishing the war before the next elections in both Britain and the US.

 

I think you are reading a lot into it that is not there, its a very dodgy situation, and sledge hammer to crack a nut is probably not the way to go.

There is also the outcome, push Russia out of Ukraine and it aint over, there has to be a settlement and Putin needs a way out without looking the idiot that we all know he is.

There may be the hope that they can slowly wear Russia down but dont hold your breath.

 

I can't imagine that either. I would think though that tactics and the use of the various weapons are being very very closely scrutinised, and will lead to developments in various countries.

That is the a big problem.There will have to be some compromise or change (and there should have been some compromise or change to stop this lot kicking off).

 

The USA has fought Russia multiple times in a way that is not entirely dissimilar.

The so called space race for example, was just an economic war to see who could skint eachother first. Then there was the time when the USA supported the Taliban against the Soviets.

 

I agree. The world is seeing that Putin's military is also all bluff and propaganda and that the West have overestimated his capabilities. Which is a good thing as it has kept us on our toes - developing weapons that match of exceed those of Putin.

What was it that a Ukrainian pilot said - he likened Russian and US fighter aircraft to a Mini Metro and a Rolls Royce.

 

It would be a mistake to underestimate Russian military capability. We are not comparing like for like. We can laugh at Russian fighter jets when comparing them with some of the jets kicking about in NATO nations, or the same with tanks etc. But Russia still has two incredibly powerful advantages that can't be laughed at. The first and most obvious is their nuclear arsenal. They not only have the most nukes, but also the biggest. The other is their readiness and ability to fight dirty, anywhere in the world, without any regard for collateral damage. In this latter category I'd lump everything from their ability to deliver deadly poison to their chosen target anywhere in the world (eg the Salisbury incident), to their very mature cyber warfare activities that can shutdown or severely impede critical services.

While the rest of the world is still focused on developing better weapons for conventional war, and laughing at Russia's conventional war fighting ability, Russia has long recognised that the world has moved on, and now depends on interconnected computer systems and satellite systems for pretty much everything.

As much as our propaganda machine is brainwashing us to believe Russia is a laughing stock, it would be a huge mistake for political leaders and military top brass to not take the Russian threat seriously. We get the message that Russia is pathetic because that message lends itself to continued public support for the very necessary effort to bring them in line, but behind closed doors I very much doubt the top knobs are underestimating them.