Ukraine: Are ya winning yet.

[mormont]

Johnson does know a bit about threatening phone calls. 

[Gorn]

43 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I can’t imagine where Russians might have learned about “silent majority” political horseshit…

It is closely connected to their belief that democratic elections are a sham that doesn't represent actual beliefs of the populace. I mean, it's the case in Russia, so it must be the case everywhere.

[Werthead]

I believe those sort of calls are recorded, so lying about it would not do much good. And it's 100% on-brand for Putin.

As for the belief in one's own propaganda, that is a serious danger of that form of information disparity. If you look at Hitler and Goebbels' use of propaganda through the 1930s and into the start of WWII, they clearly have lines where they know they're speaking bullshit and they even discuss what lies they are going to say and for what purpose. The Japanese Ambassador to Berlin was somewhat bewildered when Hitler congratulated his country for its clearly lying attempts to negotiate with the United States and then hitting Pearl Harbour with their pants down, and launched into a lengthy exposition of how he had done the same thing in the past.

However, at some point propagandists start believing their own nonsense, even to dangerous and self-destructive ends: Hitler moving models representing entire tank divisions during the Battle for Berlin and confidently saying they would cut off the Soviets, and underlings not being able to convince him that the tank divisions had been obliterated by the Red Army.

With Putin, who famously does not use the Internet, ever, it's very unclear how and what information is getting to him. It's also clear that Putin is not a military strategist, at all, and his understanding of military matters is very limited compared even to Hitler's (who at least had served in the military, and actually read books on military strategy and, early on at least, knew when to back the fuck off and let people like Guderian and Manstein plan things). He's repeatedly kept troops in utterly untenable positions for weeks or months longer than he should have, achieving nothing but wasting his own strength.

[williamjm]

8 hours ago, A wilding said:

1) Johnson has been proven, many times over, to be an utterly shameless liar who makes stuff up on the spot to make him look good to whoever he is speaking to.

He does end his account of Putin's threat by saying 'or something like that', which suggests that even Boris isn't all that confident about the accuracy of what he has just said.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

With Putin, who famously does not use the Internet, ever, it's very unclear how and what information is getting to him. It's also clear that Putin is not a military strategist, at all, and his understanding of military matters is very limited compared even to Hitler's (who at least had served in the military, and actually read books on military strategy and, early on at least, knew when to back the fuck off and let people like Guderian and Manstein plan things). He's repeatedly kept troops in utterly untenable positions for weeks or months longer than he should have, achieving nothing but wasting his own strength.

I have heard (and basically everything is hearsay on this matter) that as the war has gone worse, Putin has sought out some additional sources of information to get "the real deal" about the war.  But those sources are people like war bloggers and a few mid level officers who somehow established a rapport with him (and could have been hand picked by someone to manipulate Putin, you never know).  Regardless, these new sources are all ultranationalists, fully in favor of the war, and suggest the solution to everything is just a question of tactics or leadership changes. 

It remains an open question what degree of military defeats are necessary before something breaks through Putin's information bubble and makes clear that the war is irretrievably lost.  IMO the best case but still plausible solution is that the Ukrainians hang on for another couple months, and then launch a successful (if likely bloody) spring offensive south from Zaporozhye to cut off the rail and road links to all points west of there.  That includes some of Zaporozhye oblast, what remains of occupied Kherson oblast and all of Crimea.  Then it will be like the Kherson (city) offensive, but on a bigger scale, where Ukraine gradually wears down an enemy that cannot properly resupply. 

At that point, it would be pretty unequivocal that Russia is at least losing the war, although who knows whether Putin will admit that it is lost.  He might hope that Western support will wane after 2023 and he can still achieve some semblance of victory in later years.  He might even be right (although I think it looks increasingly unlikely). 

[JGP]

Former face eating Leopards eating from the ass up on this one. 

[Maithanet]

Speaking of face eating leopards, this is also awful.

 

 

[Wade1865]

6 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Speaking of face eating leopards, this is also awful.

Maithanet -- reminds me of Darya's martyrdom.

 

Assuming it's true 

 

POL is open to sending UKR some F-16s, subject to coordination with other NATO members; but really, the approval of the USA. When asked if he would send any, Uncle Joe (to his credit) said no! and no means no! If he changes his mind on the fighters, I suspect that would reflect RUS being on track to take Kiev, which is doubtful given RUS incompetence; on the other hand, Vladimir did successfully revert to positional warfare while trading land and bodies for time. What a dilemma!

In the meantime, the USG intends to provide only enough resources for UKR to maintain conditions and settle the borders (where even a frozen conflict would be adequate), not facilitate a decisive victory and risk an expansion of the war. Keep RUS pinned on a portion of occupied territory, and bleed them out until the state either collapses or a more reasonable leader assumes control. Then -- safely -- absorb UKR into NATO and return the lost territory after ... say ... another 40 years.

Just musing 

[Werthead]

At the moment the US and Europe are working on a tit-for-tat escalatory schedule. So Russia is expected to announce it is sending T-14 Armatas to Ukraine, which is not expected to be decisive (claims they have 40 in working order seem to be scoffed at, when previously they had trouble putting a dozen on a parade without them breaking down). A second wave of conscription may also be announced in the coming weeks. That might be grounds for the US to confirm ATACMS, which is needed at the moment as Russia seems to have successfully configured its resupply lines to position stockpiles out of HIMARS current range. Either ATACMS or the intermediate range bombs would extend Ukraine's ability to hit those new stockpiles.

For the US and allies to send F-16s, I think Russia would have to significantly escalate, either by launching a new offensive via Belarus or Belarus agreeing to enter the war directly, or something of that magnitude.

[Maithanet]

I believe this source is credible, and if so, this is good news.  Might be seeing a lot more ammo dumps going up in the near future.

Also the Dutch and French militaries are donating another 50ish Caesar artilley pieces, which means Ukraine may have more of that weapon than France does.  

 

[mcbigski]

On 1/30/2023 at 8:23 PM, Wade1865 said:

In the meantime, the USG intends to provide only enough resources for UKR to maintain conditions and settle the borders (where even a frozen conflict would be adequate), not facilitate a decisive victory and risk an expansion of the war.

 

The whole point of a Forever War is that you aren't trying to win it.  But the profit is fantastic if you've bought the right folks to keep it going.   

Was Megadeth being intentionally ironic with Peace Sells, but who's Buying?  Or just accidentally prophetic?

 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

25 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

The whole point of a Forever War i

So would you like the US to give much more to bring about a decisive victory sooner?

[mcbigski]

47 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

So would you like the US to give much more to bring about a decisive victory sooner?

Ask Wade, he's the one that explicitly mentioned a 40 year time frame.

[Zorral]

Dave Mustaine, "Killing is my business and business is good," whom I knew personally in my youth, hasn't a shred of irony in his entire system.

[Wade1865]

15 hours ago, mcbigski said:

The whole point of a Forever War is that you aren't trying to win it.  But the profit is fantastic if you've bought the right folks to keep it going.

mcbigski -- yes; very insightful, and it rings true. War, not for the sake of war, but for gaining and maintaining political and economic power in perpetuity. Ukraine was a gift, hahaha.

Better us than them 

[Maithanet]

26 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

mcbigski -- yes; very insightful, and it rings true. War, not for the sake of war, but for gaining and maintaining political and economic power in perpetuity. Ukraine was a gift, hahaha.

Strongly disagree, in both tone and substance.

At the moment, Russia and Ukraine are operating on different timelines for the war.  Ukraine wants to get as much equipment they can get this winter so that they can make a big offensive in the spring/summer.  The hope being that an effective, decisive counterattack could retake much of, if not all, Ukrainian territory.  At which point it will be clear that the Russian military is beaten and Putin's willingness to sacrifice the lives of his soldiers will not be enough to grant him victory.  Thus Ukraine is hoping/planning on winning the war this year. 

Russia on the other hand, is seeking to win this war over the long haul.  They believe that NATO will gradually lose patience with the Ukrainian aid requests.  While Ukraine obviously wants to retake all its territory, the priority for NATO is to check Russian imperialism.  Thus Russia is betting that if they can hold on to at least some Ukrainian territory then in 2024 or 2025, NATO assistance will wane, the Russian military will regain the upper hand and Ukraine will have no choice but to negotiate.  This is Putin's vision for an extremely costly, but nonetheless meaningful, victory. 

Since I see the geopolitical (and indeed humanitarian) benefits of denying Russia this victory, I strongly support giving Ukraine what they need to win the 2023 offensive and end the war. 

[Wade1865]

Maithanet -- your assessment is as fine as anyone else’s, but you’re missing the point. I don’t care which side wins or how they’re approaching resolution.

[Jace, Extat]

13 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

Maithanet -- your assessment is as fine as anyone else’s, but you’re missing the point. I don’t care which side wins or how they’re approaching resolution.

Well, as the newly-minted Good Girl of the Board Militarists... 

I don't think Ukraine should attack as a matter of course in Spring, Summer, or Fall. 

I mean, obviously, their general staff knows what they're doing. I wouldn't tell them NOT to do whatever they're gonna do. 

I would just put forward the fact that Ukraine grows stronger every day. Has gigantic reserves it had all year to train and incorporate. Is well armed with small arms and AT weapons. This is good! 

But yo, they ain't got no armor! 

They ain't got no air! 

Don't just slap some donated shit together as fast as you can and try to schwerpunkt your way to gaining back some territory. That's an excellent way to ruin all your best new equipment in exchange for a new status quo. And god forbid you lose or just fail to win...

Eh. 

I say wait. Get ironclad deals from US and Nato for equipment (tanks, planes, drones) to finish the war for good in '24 

That gives Russia a whole nother year to wither on the vine. And it sucks to have to eat punches and lose lives that way, but in the coldest calculous of war... Ukraine's losses are more replaceable than Russia's. At the equipment and personnel level. That's just the way it is. However, I think that the optimal use of that strength is to hold back for a knockout blow against an enemy who may very well defeat itself very very soon instead of chancing many many more lives on an optimistic meat grinder strategy. 

Just my opinion. 

Having their army routed (but not beaten) by a Ukrainian attack might actually do more to strengthen Russian resolve than if Putin is seen as just feeding more and more sons of Russia to the spears of NATO for the sake of his vanity. 

IMO 

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Since I see the geopolitical (and indeed humanitarian) benefits of denying Russia this victory, I strongly support giving Ukraine what they need to win the 2023 offensive and end the war. 

Not to mention that some in the United States military and government believe there is a rising chance of a direct military confrontation with China before the end of this decade, potentially much sooner, and they will need to focus as much power and attention on that, and the sooner Russia is defeated and left licking its wounds, the less likely they will have to fight a two-front conflict (not that the USA can't do that, it's just far more expensive and dangerous, and they probably believe a direct war with China can stay conventional but a war with Russia would be much more likely to spin out of control).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Not to mention that some in the United States military and government believe there is a rising chance of a direct military confrontation with China before the end of this decade, potentially much sooner, and they will need to focus as much power and attention on that, and the sooner Russia is defeated and left licking its wounds, the less likely they will have to fight a two-front conflict (not that the USA can't do that, it's just far more expensive and dangerous, and they probably believe a direct war with China can stay conventional but a war with Russia would be much more likely to spin out of control).

How much of a pause do you think the poor performance of Soviet/Russian tech has given the PLA… given how much of their older stuff is based on Soviet tech?