Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[gearhog]

34 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

“All we need are two Patriot systems,” he said. “Russia will not be able to occupy Kharkiv if we have those.”

Two patriots, a series of "tactical retreats", and a strategy of "mobile defense" are the keys to victory.

Who knew?

[BashiChuni]

16 minutes ago, gearhog said:

Two patriots, a series of "tactical retreats", and a strategy of "mobile defense" are the keys to victory.

Who knew?

Throw in some f-16s, M-1s, Bradley’s and victory is guaranteed! And a few more billion! Hell, sprinkle some American “advisors” on top for good measure. 

[HeloDude]

8 hours ago, Lawman said:

Crimea is currently under effective siege. If it wasn’t the Russian Black Sea fleet would still be in harbor there and the biggest airfield on the Island wouldn’t have spent the last several days on fire.

If this ends at the tables as all wars have, negotiation positions will make all the impact in what final terms are.

The lunacy is people like Gearhog demanding that there is some kind of righteousness in the west abandoning Ukraine to its self like it can then enter those negotiations with any kind of leg to stand on. Germany tried that in WWI with the allies basically saying “sign this or else” and the inability to continue fighting. They were done because means = 0. Russia would simply demand absurd amounts and swallow the largest land mass in Europe through ineptness by the west, and then look at the Baltics (which Putin thinks are his by right) like “who is really gonna stop me.” We should cease our more active efforts of support only after hostilities have ended, not as some sort threat of withholding it to beat the peace out of the a Ukrainians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, I’ll take all that as a no.  Usually when you can’t win a war you try to negotiate the best terms you can make in order to avoid losing more territory, resources, and people.  If Russia keeps advancing and Ukraine keeps on losing more, then how does continuing to fight vs attempting to negotiate help Ukraine’s cause?

[Lawman]

Ok, I’ll take all that as a no.  Usually when you can’t win a war you try to negotiate the best terms you can make in order to avoid losing more territory, resources, and people.  If Russia keeps advancing and Ukraine keeps on losing more, then how does continuing to fight vs attempting to negotiate help Ukraine’s cause?

Russia isn’t “advancing.” And while we are at it, Ukraine has taken back and is holding ground they didn’t have this last January. There is a mutual exchange of tactical positions to which one side is spending exorbitantly more human capital and resources to achieve. Again, if people don’t know what a mobile defense is, or understand concepts as to why Ukraine adopted the tactics it did for the last six months, or pretend that our decision to withhold combat aid or restrict use of Corps/Division depth shaping systems like ATACM… yeah the fact Russia didnt make it the Dnieper yet along its Luhansk axis or dislodge the Ukrainians on their side of it says a lot. The Russians enjoy a fire power and manpower advantage, are attacking a non static defense, and still can’t achieve a breakthrough, not that they would be able to exploit one because of the depletion of their mechanized forces (also why you are seeing artillery tied with human wave tactics).

Russia isn’t “winning” anything. That’s a misrepresentation of the realities of ground combat that you and others seem to want to avoid to advance this idea that we need to force the Ukrainians to just accept the new reality and use our hand at the spigot to turn off their means to fight a war effectively.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

Lawman I think we can both agree Ukraine is not winning. So if you want to say Russia isn’t winning then you’re playing word games. 
 

what if Russia’s strategy isn’t to capture Ukraine, but to drain them of manpower and equipment? If I had a 10:1 or 12:1 advantage I’d be happy to let the other side fight me in a war of attrition. 
 

You speak like you know exact Russian military objectives. In reality you know what we know. OH sorry jk you know secret stuff. 
 

anyway BL is Ukraine has no national security implications for the US. We shouldn’t fund or fight in that war. And if we do I wouldn’t want the current crop of US military leaders (who just lost a 20 year war)  in charge. 

Edited May 17, 2024 by BashiChuni

[Lord Ratner]

9 hours ago, gearhog said:

Not sure how touting America losses gives credence to our effort in this one.

Because it demonstrates how you are ignoring the many historical examples of asymmetric victory to support a simple and somewhat childish argument of Russia is bigger and is pressing forward, so they must be winning. 

 

Did the North Vietnamese win against the US? Did the DRA win against the Soviets in Afghanistan? Did the Taliban win against the US? Did we win against the British? 

 

I will not argue the fecklessness of our political class. But we still have an incredible military with incredible weaponry ands intelligence to offer an ally. The very fact Russia hasn't won already, especially after a six month pause in support, is proof that this is not a simple matter of Russia capturing 86 km² of terrain. 

 

It's one thing to not want to spend the money. That's simply a fiscal priority. But the "side" arguing against this doesn't seem comfortable with their fiscal position, so they have to twist the conversation into the "impossibility" of success. That's now a military argument that you don't seem able to make effectively.

 

There is a huge difference between "should we" and "can we."

[FourFans]

25 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

You speak like you know exact Russian military objectives.

No, he speaks like he understands the dynamics of modern high-intensity ground conflict.  His points about non-static defense and breakthroughs are spot on.  

[HeloDude]

41 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Russia isn’t “advancing.” And while we are at it, Ukraine has taken back and is holding ground they didn’t have this last January. There is a mutual exchange of tactical positions to which one side is spending exorbitantly more human capital and resources to achieve. Again, if people don’t know what a mobile defense is, or understand concepts as to why Ukraine adopted the tactics it did for the last six months, or pretend that our decision to withhold combat aid or restrict use of Corps/Division depth shaping systems like ATACM… yeah the fact Russia didnt make it the Dnieper yet along its Luhansk axis or dislodge the Ukrainians on their side of it says a lot. The Russians enjoy a fire power and manpower advantage, are attacking a non static defense, and still can’t achieve a breakthrough, not that they would be able to exploit one because of the depletion of their mechanized forces (also why you are seeing artillery tied with human wave tactics).

Russia isn’t “winning” anything. That’s a misrepresentation of the realities of ground combat that you and others seem to want to avoid to advance this idea that we need to force the Ukrainians to just accept the new reality and use our hand at the spigot to turn off their means to fight a war effectively.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m sure just another $60B will do the trick.  If Ukraine’s objective is to push Russia completely out of their country and regain the Crimea (as Zelensky has said), then Ukraine is most definitely not winning.

I asked you a simple question if you or anyone else believes that Ukraine can regain all lost territory, including the Crimea, and you weren’t able to provide a simple yes or no answer.  My answer is a clear no.

[Lawman]

I’m sure just another $60B will do the trick.  If Ukraine’s objective is to push Russia completely out of their country and regain the Crimea (as Zelensky has said), then Ukraine is most definitely not winning.
I asked you a simple question if you or anyone else believes that Ukraine can regain all lost territory, including the Crimea, and you weren’t able to provide a simple yes or no answer.  My answer is a clear no.

No now you’re moving goal posts.

If they can’t have it all back it’s not a win therefore we shouldn’t help them “lose.” And what’s more you only want to evaluate based off the last 6 months of Russian “success” as some would misrepresent it given how little it has achieved, its costs, and the restrictions we placed on the Ukrainians.

That’s absolutely ludicrous given that they’ve retaken ground, sit in a position where Crimea is becoming an untenable position for the Russians to maintain combat forces, and have only very recently been given tools necessary for shaping actions necessary to precede any offensive action like taking back territory.

And what does it achieve? Despite the sapping of any Russian combat power necessary for future aggression and rebuilding our own deficient military supply structure? Well there is the fact that Ukraine is positioned on the southern flank and effectively the most powerful ground force in a Europe, acting as a check against future Russian aggression to take the Baltics (which Putin has stated his intent towards).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

17 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Because it demonstrates how you are ignoring the many historical examples of asymmetric victory to support a simple and somewhat childish argument of Russia is bigger and is pressing forward, so they must be winning. 

Did the North Vietnamese win against the US? Did the DRA win against the Soviets in Afghanistan? Did the Taliban win against the US? Did we win against the British? 

I will not argue the fecklessness of our political class. But we still have an incredible military with incredible weaponry ands intelligence to offer an ally. The very fact Russia hasn't won already, especially after a six month pause in support, is proof that this is not a simple matter of Russia capturing 86 km² of terrain. 

It's one thing to not want to spend the money. That's simply a fiscal priority. But the "side" arguing against this doesn't seem comfortable with their fiscal position, so they have to twist the conversation into the "impossibility" of success. That's now a military argument that you don't seem able to make effectively.

There is a huge difference between "should we" and "can we."

False. I didn't ignore the examples. I explicitly acknowledged them in an earlier post when I said history is full of examples of the tide of war changing, but there are also examples of more-recent conflicts progressing in one direction.  Asymmetry is not an accurate predictor of outcome one way or another. In all of the examples cited, geography would seem to have more correlation.

Of course we have an incredible military. But they aren't a factor in this. We could end the war in a week, but we're choosing not to. The USA is not committed to a decisive victory. Yes, our military is superior. But the USA is not the military. Our "feckless" political class is conducting this war effort, not our military. Money, technology, and advice only gets you so far.

What is your definition of success? You've established that a net gain in territory controlled is not a measure of success, but no one can say what it is. A military victory requires military manpower. Ukraine cannot do it themselves. A Ukrainian victory requires foreign boots on the ground. I'll ask again in the deafening silence: Do you want to send your kids there?

"Should we?" and "Can we?" are two meaningless bullshit questions. The real question is "Are we?".

We are not.

[HeloDude]

22 minutes ago, Lawman said:

No now you’re moving goal posts.

It’s literally the same question I asked earlier.

[Lawman]

It’s literally the same question I asked earlier.

No you asked a loaded question (which we could all see coming) and then implied if that standard of “victory” can’t be achieved we should give up now and force the Ukrainians to capitulate. And another thing, no leader is going to publicly proclaim victory is short of an ultimate end goal, doing so would be suicidal to any negotiation. Plus this isn’t a new thing for Ukraine, they’ve been fighting to get their land back since it was annexed illegally, we just widely didn’t pay attention until 2022.

If you think there isn’t a real scenario currently playing out where outcomes like Crimea is no longer under Russian control you are paying attention to the wrong talking heads in the info space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

15 minutes ago, Lawman said:

No you asked a loaded question (which we could all see coming) and then implied if that standard of “victory” can’t be achieved we should give up now and force the Ukrainians to capitulate. And another thing, no leader is going to publicly proclaim victory is short of an ultimate end goal, doing so would be suicidal to any negotiation. Plus this isn’t a new thing for Ukraine, they’ve been fighting to get their land back since it was annexed illegally, we just widely didn’t pay attention until 2022.

If you think there isn’t a real scenario currently playing out where outcomes like Crimea is no longer under Russian control you are paying attention to the wrong talking heads in the info space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Zelensky has literally said his objectives are to regain all lost territory, to include the Crimea.  I do not think this will happen, and I think the longer the fighting goes on, Ukraine loses more, not less territory.  You can provide whatever analysis you want, but I’m speaking strictly on simple predictions which you seem to not want to provide.  If I can provide a simple prediction to a simple question, then surely you are able to do the same.  If I’m wrong, then so be it, but at least I’ll provide a prediction. 

[StoleIt]

10 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Zelensky has literally said his objectives are to regain all lost territory, to include the Crimea.  I do not think this will happen, and I think the longer the fighting goes on, Ukraine loses more, not less territory.  You can provide whatever analysis you want, but I’m speaking strictly on simple predictions which you seem to not want to provide.  If I can provide a simple prediction to a simple question, then surely you are able to do the same.  If I’m wrong, then so be it, but at least I’ll provide a prediction. 

I mean, let's put it in perspective: the discussion of land lost in the last year is 0.2% of Ukraine's land mass (As of this morning at 6am: 552 sq miles out of 233,062...Source).

I am sure any countries leader worth a damn would say their definition of victory is to regain ALL invaded territory. It isn't very realistic for him to publicly say he is okay with Crimea being the sacrificial lamb. Behind closed doors in a negotiated settlement? Maybe it'll be different. But I can't fault him for his patriotism. 

I think well equipped Ukrainians can regain land from the Russians, after all, from June to December they liberated 199 sq miles. Russia has "only" occupied 294 sq miles from this April to May with their major offensive which coincided with Ukraine's major artillery shell shortage.

Meanwhile, an underequipped Ukraine is still managing to schwack oil depots and major infrastructure in Novorossyisk and a refinery in Tuapse, not to mention the attack on aviation assets in Belbek Air Base, to name a few recently.

We will see how they do after the next shipment of equipment arrives.

[BashiChuni]

“In another step in the creeping escalation, the US said sending military trainers” to participate in the War in Ukraine is “inevitable,” The New York Times (NYT) reported on May 16”

“In addition to an ammo crisis, Ukraine is suffering from a manpower shortage, as undisclosed losses reach “catastrophic levels”, according to Ukraine’s former top general Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was removed from office earlier this year.”

“So far, the US has rejected these calls but Brown said at a press conference that a Nato deployment of trainers appeared to be “inevitable.” “We’ll get there eventually, over time,” he said.”

 

things seem to be going well!

 

 

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, StoleIt said:

We will see how they do after the next shipment of equipment arrives.

I’d bet a nice bottle of scotch it doesn’t go well. 

[uhhello]

 

[Lawman]

 

The funny thing is this absolutely has a COIN application.

You could have replaced a huge portion of the air assets over Mosul or Raqqa in 16/17 if you had this technological solution. Just put something the size of a C17 flying as an airborne arsenal of FPVs with a Wolfhound or similar sized platform acting as the “crew quarters” full of operators. Now you’re literally just hunting people until you’ve killed enough to break their will or their means instead of dropping a 2k lbs bomb or pounding M36s into a target to reduce it, because you can literally chase a single bad guy with a backpack or on a motorcycle down.

Effectively air delivered mobility denial and sanitation of any force that wanted to move underneath the wide arc it could cover. And it would be a F load more economical than spending a 100k dollar anti tank missile on a Toyota full of 3rd world dipshits.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

5 hours ago, Lawman said:

And it would be a F load more economical than spending a 100k dollar anti tank missile on a Toyota full of 3rd world dipshits.

Your post is logical and makes complete and perfect sense

...if we lived in a magical fairy tale world where the major aspects of modern conflict are to 1. Win  and 2. Not transfer countless billions out of our pockets and into those that manufacture 100K dollar anti tank missiles.

The economical and practical solutions are so obvious that even you have spotted one. So why are we not using your idea?

[Lawman]

Your post is logical and makes complete and perfect sense
...if we lived in a magical fairy tale world where the major aspects of modern conflict are to 1. Win  and 2. Not transfer countless billions out of our pockets and into those that manufacture 100K dollar anti tank missiles.
The economical and practical solutions are so obvious that even you have spotted one. So why are we not using your idea?

Well I’m trying to think of a better way you could demonstrate you’re so far removed as to have no idea what’s going on in the current military modernization efforts, but damn if I can think of one.

What do you think the Replicator initiative is?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

19 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Well I’m trying to think of a better way you could demonstrate you’re so far removed as to have no idea what’s going on in the current military modernization efforts, but damn if I can think of one.

What do you think the Replicator initiative is?

An "initiative" implies an intent to field a capability at some point in the future that is currently in an earlier stage of development. It's a little late, but it would be nice. Where is it budgeted? Who cares, right?

The conversation we're having now is about a capability that currently exists and is being employed. The vast majority of the nearing $200 Billion we have committed to spending now and into the future, that is not part of the "Replicator Initiative", for this specific conflict in Ukraine, are for the other more expensive capabilities that you were complaining about in your earlier post.

[Lawman]

An "initiative" implies an intent to field a capability at some point in the future that is currently in an earlier stage of development. It's a little late, but it would be nice. Where is it budgeted? Who cares, right?
The conversation we're having now is about a capability that currently exists and is being employed. The vast majority of the nearing $200 Billion we have committed to spending now and into the future, that is not part of the "Replicator Initiative", for this specific conflict in Ukraine, are for the other more expensive capabilities that you were complaining about in your earlier post.

So again… you don’t know what’s going on or what’s funded or what we are/aren’t doing. You don’t have any idea what is in testing, in the field, or been shown to be suitable in one fight but not another. You’re just here to continue sport bitching.

Very useful.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

In other news…after two years of war… The last Russian Black Sea vessel with the ability to conduct Kalibr strikes against Ukraine is gone.

https://maritime-executive.com/article/ukraine-confirms-strike-on-last-russian-guided-missile-warship-in-crimea

Russia has apparently now lost its ability to conduct strike from an entire domain of modern warfare to a country which has no significant Naval power. On top of that the Ukrainians have begun targeting Novorossiysk which the Russians evacuated most of their fleet too after Sevastopol became untenable. This is probably the greatest embarrassment for the Russian Navy since the Russo-Japanese war.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[raimius]

33 minutes ago, Lawman said:

In other news…after two years of war… The last Russian Black Sea vessel with the ability to conduct Kalibr strikes against Ukraine is gone.

https://maritime-executive.com/article/ukraine-confirms-strike-on-last-russian-guided-missile-warship-in-crimea

Russia has apparently now lost its ability to conduct strike from an entire domain of modern warfare to a country which has no significant Naval power. On top of that the Ukrainians have begun targeting Novorossiysk which the Russians evacuated most of their fleet too after Sevastopol became untenable. This is probably the greatest embarrassment for the Russian Navy since the Russo-Japanese war.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I mean losing their flagship because the crew couldn't do damage control properly after taking hits...because their defensive systems were off/inop in the middle of a warzone is pretty high up there on embarrassment...

[gearhog]

26 minutes ago, Lawman said:

So again… you don’t know what’s going on or what’s funded or what we are/aren’t doing. You don’t have any idea what is in testing, in the field, or been shown to be suitable in one fight but not another. You’re just here to continue sport bitching.

Very useful.

It's unlikely that I can type this in a way that is elementary enough for you to understand, but I'm going to try anyway.

1. The "Replicator Initiative" that you brought up is an "initiative", or program in development for future use. The word "future" means not today.

2. The drone capabilities you mentioned exist at this moment. They are being used in this moment.

3. The $Billions of our money that has been committed for the Ukraine Appropriations bills are not for the "Replicator Initiative".

4. The $Billions of our money that has been committed ARE for the more expensive conventional war-fighting that you were bitching about.

5. Nearly 80% of the Ukraine Appropriations are going not to Ukraine so they can acquire their own war-fighting capabilities,  but directly to the manufacturers of the $100 anti-tank missiles you were bitching about.

6. It is logical to assume there is little interest in your combat-effective and cost effective solution that currently exists.

Again, these are some highly advanced concepts, but if you need me to break it down even further for you, I don't mind trying.