Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Lawman]

How dare you bring logistics into a talk about warfare!  What do you think this place is?!  Task and Purpose?!

And next we can start talking about convergence windows…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FourFans]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

And next we can start talking about convergence windows…
 

As a graduate of the Army Airspace Control Course, my official response is:

Last I heard, they were preaching a coordination altitude in the Flight Levels.  Convergence windows?  HA!!   Let's face it, the Army's idea of coordination realistically boils down to:

"send it and find out"

With all that's developing right now, I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Wiesbaden. 

Edited July 6, 2024 by FourFans

[Majestik Møøse]

6 hours ago, Lawman said:

Lot of video-bloggers with access and funding have been buying commercial satellite scans and doing what NGIC was doing from the get go of the conflict… counting hulls in storage yards.




In terms of “what does funding this war buy” well… in this example Russia will no longer have the equipment to provide the means to conduct offensive ground warfare against its neighbors in NATO. Unfortunately nobody is doing YouTube videos on similar losses of more critical systems like engineering vehicles or self propelled artillery, that would paint an even bleaker story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But do you have a Daily Mail source?

[BashiChuni]

guys great news the war is being won now that the F-16s are here!

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/10/ukraine-russia-f16-jets-nato-summit

[ViperMan]

9 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

guys great news the war is being won now that the F-16s are here!

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/10/ukraine-russia-f16-jets-nato-summit

Bro, this war is going to enter it's 3rd year and Russia won't have made it 50 miles into Ukraine. Mark my words. Compare that to WWII and how much ground was taken. Compare it to Desert Storm, which was probably an equivalent challenge to taking Ukraine. This war is not going in Russia's direction. I don't know why you keep posting, but you're not convincing us, and it doesn't seem like you've posted enough to convince yourself. Yet. But keep going. Maybe your next post will convince all of us that Russia will eventually get there.

[BashiChuni]

bro, i don't think russia's goal is to occupy all of ukraine. i am convinced it is not in US interests to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a country no one gives AF about. putin is happy as a pig in mud to wear down ukranian manpower + equipment in a war of attrition.

[uhhello]

6 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

bro, i don't think russia's goal is to occupy all of ukraine. i am convinced it is not in US interests to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a country no one gives AF about. putin is happy as a pig in mud to wear down ukranian manpower + equipment in a war of attrition.

What does he gain by destroying his vaunted military to not occupy more ground?  

[ViperMan]

8 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

bro, i don't think russia's goal is to occupy all of ukraine. i am convinced it is not in US interests to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a country no one gives AF about. putin is happy as a pig in mud to wear down ukranian manpower + equipment in a war of attrition.

Well you're picking odd ways to make that point then. And Putin is picking an odd way to win a war. Why draw it out? If it was winnable? I'm curious to hear why you think it's in his strategic interest to lengthen a conflict he could win.

[BashiChuni]

that's a good question and i don't have the answer. my speculation is he wants to push just enough to remove ukraine as a military threat, but not hard enough to energize NATO to mobilize. all the while killing two birds with one stone by sucking in nato $ and equipment to weaken it. kind of like how we think we are blood letting russia (which i'm sure is true to an extent). i think he has the same thoughts. AND he knows western public opinion can focus on a topic for weeks and then it's on to the next outrage. plus european economies aren't exactly thriving right now. and look at france...lots of political turmoil.

i don't think his definition of winning is what the west thinks. the west thinks kiev....paris next. putin hasn't shown any desire to do that. i think putin wants a buffer from nato on his border. remember putin essentially had a peace deal with Z before it was sabotaged.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-deal.html

why would he start negotiating with Z in 2022 just weeks after the start of invasion? bluff? maybe. but i think that shows limited objectives.

my main beef is this limited insight into our enemy makes for a very dangerous cocktail if either side makes the wrong move and the other side calls the bluff.

Edited July 11, 2024 by BashiChuni

[Majestik Møøse]

That’s a revisionist goal if I ever heard one. Putin wanted to take over Ukraine, made clear when he set his army off directly toward Kiev from the start. He got his shit pushed in and has gotten a quarter million Russian kids killed to save face. He’s a total shit head, probably because his dick is tiny.

[BashiChuni]

yeah all 200k of his army to invade ukraine. come on man you're smarter than that.

[Lawman]

All part of the 3D chess strategy Putin is using.

https://apple.news/AAuFDjRRhRKyggVc2Jhy06w

Man look at him weakening NATO. We’re gonna be in so much trouble….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StoleIt]

On 7/11/2024 at 11:44 AM, BashiChuni said:

i don't think his definition of winning is what the west thinks. the west thinks kiev....paris next. putin hasn't shown any desire to do that. i think putin wants a buffer from nato on his border. remember putin essentially had a peace deal with Z before it was sabotaged.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-deal.html

Except Putin did try and take Kiev. "According to the British Ministry of Defence, Russian forces were 31 kilometres (19 mi) from the city-center of Kyiv (Source)."

Also, how was that peace deal sabotaged? I'm unable to read the article behind a paywall. But it seems like that peace deal resolved around Ukraine giving up rights to many territories and several other concessions to Russia.

[Clayton Bigsby]

[ViperStud]

6 hours ago, StoleIt said:

Except Putin did try and take Kiev. "According to the British Ministry of Defence, Russian forces were 31 kilometres (19 mi) from the city-center of Kyiv (Source)."

Also, how was that peace deal sabotaged? I'm unable to read the article behind a paywall. But it seems like that peace deal resolved around Ukraine giving up rights to many territories and several other concessions to Russia.

Their argument is that Boris Johnson tubed it. It’s clear he and Z met, but the content of their discussions is pure speculation. The Putin simps say he was promising unrestricted Western support (which he was/is in no position to do) and pushed for a prolonged war rather than peace. UKR had plenty of reason outside of BJ’s meeting to refuse all the concessions Russia was demanding - most of all the promise of neutrality after Russia had already invaded them twice after (A) promising security for giving nukes back and (B) the failure of the Minsk agreements. Kinda tough to blame UKR for not taking Putin at his word wrt peace deals. 
 

Where the Putin simp argument falls apart is when you ask them why not, after BJ’s “interference” with UKR, just have Russian forces about-face and take the capital. Fact is - they couldn’t. Losses were mounting and logistics were getting stretched thin. The typical Putin simp then bitches about NATO expansion, UKR war crimes that don’t exist and then eventually they start staring at their feet and whining about Comet Pizza.

[BashiChuni]

it's all explained here, but you idiots won't listen

46:45

 

1:06:00 peace deal scuttled

Edited July 13, 2024 by BashiChuni

[bfargin]

7 hours ago, ViperStud said:

words...

When one resorts to attempting to disparage those who disagree, they've lost the argument. It was pretty well known that UKR was willing to give a little for peace (early on). We might not have liked the potential agreement, but why interject and directly cause hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians to kill each other with no realistic end game (other than kill Russians)?

Your liberal western idealism is obscuring your ability to see the nuance in all of the long history of UKR vs. RUS relationship and of course the current conflict. I've not heard any cheerleaders for Putin, but many of us see the historical cause and effect of US and other western "powers" actions, and "situations" all over the world. We've screwed the pooch in just about every foreign policy decision over the past 20 plus years. 

I'm not (and neither is anybody else) cheering for others, but I'd like us as a nation to begin to slow our roll and at least spend a few minutes before making decisions that put our military members in indirect and direct harms way with no clear goals, no clear threat, consideration of 3rd and 4th order consequences, etc.

[Boomer6]

16 hours ago, bfargin said:

I'm not (and neither is anybody else) cheering for others, but I'd like us as a nation to begin to slow our roll and at least spend a few minutes before making decisions that put our military members in indirect and direct harms way with no clear goals, no clear threat, consideration of 3rd and 4th order consequences, etc.

Finally, a counterpoint grounded in logic, and not the same ol' verbal Russian handjob from the resident apologist.

[Lawman]

When one resorts to attempting to disparage those who disagree, they've lost the argument. It was pretty well known that UKR was willing to give a little for peace (early on). We might not have liked the potential agreement, but why interject and directly cause hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians to kill each other with no realistic end game (other than kill Russians)?
Your liberal western idealism is obscuring your ability to see the nuance in all of the long history of UKR vs. RUS relationship and of course the current conflict. I've not heard any cheerleaders for Putin, but many of us see the historical cause and effect of US and other western "powers" actions, and "situations" all over the world. We've screwed the pooch in just about every foreign policy decision over the past 20 plus years. 
I'm not (and neither is anybody else) cheering for others, but I'd like us as a nation to begin to slow our roll and at least spend a few minutes before making decisions that put our military members in indirect and direct harms way with no clear goals, no clear threat, consideration of 3rd and 4th order consequences, etc.

Go get on SIPR and talk to your intel about the grey conflict area activities going in across NATO executed by Russia.

Pretending that this is just a fight between them and Ukraine is dangerously dismissive of active actions short of full scale combat they have levied against our NATO partners (and US citizens) stationed around EUCOM. And the media and leadership is complicit in non making it a bigger topic of discussion as to “why support Ukraine” or “why is this our problem” to their citizenry.

The direct combatant part of Russian actions to rebalance the scales the in the relationship against the west isn’t going well… it’s stalled on the battlefield in Ukraine largely because of continued support for this phase. That is deliberate action by NATO before it becomes a shooting war where the only opponents left enjoy article V status. The non direct combat portions (which preced combat) though are very much in full swing in the region in NATO countries, particularly the Baltics and Poland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Majestik Møøse]

18 hours ago, bfargin said:

When one resorts to attempting to disparage those who disagree, they've lost the argument. It was pretty well known that UKR was willing to give a little for peace (early on). We might not have liked the potential agreement, but why interject and directly cause hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians to kill each other with no realistic end game (other than kill Russians)?

Your liberal western idealism is obscuring your ability to see the nuance in all of the long history of UKR vs. RUS relationship and of course the current conflict. I've not heard any cheerleaders for Putin, but many of us see the historical cause and effect of US and other western "powers" actions, and "situations" all over the world. We've screwed the pooch in just about every foreign policy decision over the past 20 plus years. 

I'm not (and neither is anybody else) cheering for others, but I'd like us as a nation to begin to slow our roll and at least spend a few minutes before making decisions that put our military members in indirect and direct harms way with no clear goals, no clear threat, consideration of 3rd and 4th order consequences, etc.

Root cause is Putin’s tiny dick and no one will convince me otherwise. Only Xi’s is maybe smaller

[ViperStud]

18 hours ago, bfargin said:

words…

Recent history matters, and UKR has had their territorial sovereignty violated twice in the last decade by the same hostile invading force. That’s a fact. Im not missing all the history of UKR-RUS, and considering my job I’m probably more well-versed on their 30-year history and current ops than most anyone here, but none of that excuses Russia’s current actions. 
 

WRT our policy, you’re right. We do not have a good track record nation building. The ME was a fvcking whack-a-mole debacle on a lot of levels, even if some of it was unavoidable. I argue this is different, though. We are supporting a sovereign nation (not trying to build one) against a long-term adversary of the west (not a bunch of radical shitheads). That particulars adversary is the second most prominent member of the SCO and has committed a host of belligerent acts against us and our allies. We are collecting a ton of info for a relatively (good argument to be had here) low cost. There are significant 2/3 order effects - want RUS to have a land bridge to Moldova? This is not AFG 2.0. 

[ClearedHot]

Wounded Russian soldiers – some on crutches – used in ‘meat wave’ attacks

[ClearedHot]

On 7/14/2024 at 10:42 AM, ViperStud said:

Recent history matters, and UKR has had their territorial sovereignty violated twice in the last decade by the same hostile invading force. That’s a fact. Im not missing all the history of UKR-RUS, and considering my job I’m probably more well-versed on their 30-year history and current ops than most anyone here, but none of that excuses Russia’s current actions. 
 

WRT our policy, you’re right. We do not have a good track record nation building. The ME was a fvcking whack-a-mole debacle on a lot of levels, even if some of it was unavoidable. I argue this is different, though. We are supporting a sovereign nation (not trying to build one) against a long-term adversary of the west (not a bunch of radical shitheads). That particulars adversary is the second most prominent member of the SCO and has committed a host of belligerent acts against us and our allies. We are collecting a ton of info for a relatively (good argument to be had here) low cost. There are significant 2/3 order effects - want RUS to have a land bridge to Moldova? This is not AFG 2.0. 

Amen brother...it is foolish to think Putin stops with Ukraine.  Look at what he has been doing with Georgia.

[bfargin]

On 7/14/2024 at 10:42 AM, ViperStud said:

better words ...

Thanks for the reply. I still think a compromise early on would have been best for the world, but I acknowledge both sides have merit (early compromise and all out war to free all of UKR). I appreciate you sticking to the topic rather than name calling.

[ViperStud]

5 hours ago, bfargin said:

Thanks for the reply. I still think a compromise early on would have been best for the world, but I acknowledge both sides have merit (early compromise and all out war to free all of UKR). I appreciate you sticking to the topic rather than name calling.

You’re still buying into the false dichotomy a bit too much - few in relevant leadership positions believe in all-out war to free all of UKR. All the GOs, house members, etc. I’ve dealt with know that a (hopefully sooner than later) brokered peace deal likely keeps lines ~where they are now. UKR senior leadership won’t say that publicly, and how could they? It’s not an “compromise” if you advertise your starting point to be ceding 4 Oblasts and Crimea.
 

That’s far less of a sticking point than future security. RUS guarantees mean nothing - they invaded twice now despite assurances post-USSR collapse and the Minsk agreements. You can’t blame UKR for wanting more than RUS assurances. They want a road to NATO, because article 5 is a security guarantee with teeth. You can’t blame Russia for not wanting UKR in NATO. That’s the sticking point, not kicking RUS out of Crimea. 
 

On a side note - my RUS simp comments not directed at everyone who disagrees with the above. They’re directed at those who don’t see they’ve been played by SCO member disinformation ops all along. We all know RUS and others ran IO campaigns during our elections and at other times, seriously get in a vault if you deny that. IMO the bigger issue isn’t if they were trying to influence a certain candidate (they weren’t), it’s that they convinced so many of us that all Western institutions are trash and that (secondary effect) someone like Putin isn’t a bad actor. I’ve been blown away by some friends who are convinced the RUS claims of UKR genocide are real despite dismissal from every intl humanitarian aid org and The Hague. Why? All those institutions are trash. 🤦‍♂️  So many have been hoodwinked by IO campaigns into looking past all the belligerent acts of our true adversaries.