Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[HeloDude]

Does anyone actually believe that Russia will be defeated and/or Ukraine will regain all its territory, to include the Crimea?  Honest question.

[Lord Ratner]

17 minutes ago, gearhog said:

And Ukraine has? You avoided the question again. What is the other factor that turns the tide in the war?

So losing ground isn't losing ground, it's "mobile defense". lol. I'm not the one making the claim. You tell me the strategic effect.

Yeah, Russia does enjoy a 10 tp 1. That's exactly my point. We are dicking away. You're admitting Russia has an advantage while simultaneously arguing that it's our fault that Ukr can't make progress. Yes. You. Are. Correct. Singling out Greene as the reason Ukr is losing ground is a bit of a stretch. Your left is showing again.

Do you not think it possible for an invasion to last 20+ years? Where have you been lately? lol Do you want to pay $100 Billion a year for the next 20 years to fund someone else's war?

 

 

I didn't think you do this intentionally, but you just hear what you want to hear. 

 

Everything you just said was a mischaracterization of his post, or just truly unimaginative thinking. 

 

If a hundred soldiers advance on my position 10km away, and I kill 10 per kilometer of advance, who wins? 

 

Similarly the French were quite effective in advancing into Russian territory, but that didn't work out great for Napoleon. Or Hitler.

Did the Americans win Vietnam? We were quite effective at advancing, and we had an overwhelming munitions advantage. 

 

That may or may not be what's happening here, but that you can't recognize the concept is... Questionable.

[Lord Ratner]

23 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Does anyone actually believe that Russia will be defeated and/or Ukraine will regain all its territory, to include the Crimea?  Honest question.

Highly, highly unlikely for the territory. "Win" has to be defined in your question. If regaining all territory is victory, then no.

[Lawman]

Does anyone actually believe that Russia will be defeated and/or Ukraine will regain all its territory, to include the Crimea?  Honest question.

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

[gearhog]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I didn't think you do this intentionally, but you just hear what you want to hear. 

 

Everything you just said was a mischaracterization of his post, or just truly unimaginative thinking. 

 

If a hundred soldiers advance on my position 10km away, and I kill 10 per kilometer of advance, who wins? 

 

Similarly the French were quite effective in advancing into Russian territory, but that didn't work out great for Napoleon. Or Hitler.

Did the Americans win Vietnam? We were quite effective at advancing, and we had an overwhelming munitions advantage. 

 

That may or may not be what's happening here, but that you can't recognize the concept is... Questionable.

No, I ask a fair questions  and Lawman can’t answer them, nor do I really expect him to be able to. 

It’s all questionable. But I tend to place more weight on things that are happening and trending over things we are hopeful to happen down the road. If we’re witnessing Fabian strategies by both sides, and the line moves, it would indicate there is more support capability behind the line.  Russia can simply throw more bodies and equipment into the fight. What is their production capability when backstopped by China and NK? I’d like to see a time/cost comparison for an equivalent NATO equipment to arrive on the front lines. Not sure how touting America losses gives credence to our effort in this one.

Ukr can’t fight this on their own. Give them our war-fighting package and they still can’t do it. To win, they need US boots on the ground. 
 

Do you want to send your kids?

 

Edited May 17 by gearhog

[BashiChuni]

5 hours ago, Lawman said:

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. We should have been having these negotiations long ago. But people like you have been screaming that negotiating with Putin is borderline treason…the second coming of chamberlain!

Russia will not lose this war and delaying negotiations for peace will cost more Ukrainian lives and push the US into a more dangerous position of direct conflict with Russia. 

[BashiChuni]

KHARKIV, Ukraine -- The situation in Ukraine is so serious that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had to cancel a planned trip to Spain and come straight to Kharkiv -- the country’s second largest city, which is again in real danger from the Russian advance.

“The situation is very serious,” Zelenskyy said. “We cannot afford to lose Kharkiv.”

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

 

do any of you professionally trained military officers believe this guy? As if two patriots are magical fucking fairy dust that will mystically change the tide of the battle  as if Russia won’t destroy those patriots like they have previously done. This is a puppet running a fantasy war in his head. It’s always “if only we get weapon system X” or “if only we get X more billions of dollars”. Boys that’s not how war is won. 
id have thought we as professionally trained military men would have learned these lessons from past failures. 

https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=110294232

Edited May 17 by BashiChuni

[BashiChuni]

The next scene of the play waits impatiently behind the curtains:

”NATO allies are inching closer to sending troops into Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces, a move that would be another blurring of a previous red line and could draw the United States and Europe more directly into the war.”

history repeats.

—————

“While attending the Armed Forces Staff College in late 1964, just as the U.S. Army was gearing up to deploy its own combat forces to Vietnam, Col. Volney F. Warner attended a speech by the Marine commandant, Gen. Wallace Greene. Before he began his talk, Gen. Greene asked his audience of a hundred 100 majors and colonels a pointed question: “How many of you think that U.S. forces should be sent to fight in Vietnam and draw the line against communism there?” 

Virtually everyone in the audience raised their hands enthusiastically. Then Greene, a decidedly hawkish member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked a second question: “How many think we should stay out of Vietnam?”  Six officers raised their hands … hesitantly. Warner was among them.“

“There are a few cowards in every bunch,” quipped the commandant. 

But those six officers weren’t cowards. They were soldiers and Marines who had recently returned stateside from tours of duty as advisers to South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) combat units. They knew from firsthand experience what the senior leadership of the American armed forces did not: That the ARVN officer corps, like the government it served, was riven by nepotism, corruption, and indifferent to the plight of the peasantry it was supposed to protect. Moreover, the ARVN was fighting a decidedly unconventional, “people’s war” against small units of guerrillas with tactics and doctrine developed by the U.S. Army for conventional conflicts between regular armies. Not surprisingly, it was losing”

Edited May 17 by BashiChuni

[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 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]