Ukraine: Are ya winning yet.

[Wade1865]

Two points to consider while we (speculate and) await the resolution of this war.

“The company expects the war to drag deep into 2023. However, with neither side showing a decisive military superiority, Fitch believes the prospect of a negotiated settlement will become more likely over a longer period. This could take the form of a “frozen conflict” rather than sustainable peace, the agency noted.”

“Ukraine is going to need around $750bn for reconstruction, Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock said at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week.”

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I don't think it's the same as during (at least most of) the Cold War.  The world is simply too multipolar to take the "doomsday" description seriously as compared to then -- even as a metaphor.

And yet, as I'm sure you know, there is much evidence of the stabilising effect of a bipolar world order compared to a multipolar one.
Point is, the Doomsday Clock has indeed lost its luster, but it's not wrong.

1 hour ago, kiko said:

How often did that happen?

Considering the fact that from a Western perspective Soviet leaders and many of their allies were in fact "ruthless dictators", quite a few times... But I meant "scenario" in a broader sense, including fiction and academic theoreticals.

The possibility of a Soviet client state aquiring nuclear weapons before breaking off from Moscow and going rogue was one of the nightmare scenarios during the Cold War. Ironically enough, Putin's Russia pretty much conforms to that scenario, which was always the Kobayashi Maru of international relations, because there is no "right choice" if when that happens.

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Ripp, I love you man.  You are erudite, well spoken, well read, and interesting.  You make points others don’t think of and are generally a pleasure to interact with.  

I still disagree with you regarding how to deal with the Russians in the war they started.

I know.

I'm afraid the disagreement runs deep. But as I said before, it doesn't actually matter because you and I have no influence on events whatsoever and both our positions have flaws. From my perspective, many of you guys talk like Dr Strangelove's General Ripper, but I'm also keenly aware that I'm playing the role of Mars Attack's president Maurice.

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I dunno, "escalating conflict against a ruthless dictator with tons of nuclear weapons" was always the standard scenario for doomsday, even during the Cold War... 

Yeah but you're placing too much importance into an artificial, and INHERENTLY constrained, system that -END GAMEs- in mutual annihilation. 

Do you see what you're doing? You're so afraid of one of the two options that you're confining yourself into a system of delay rather than resolution. By taking the inevitability of mutual destruction to such a literal conceit that you make a countdown clock for it is not alleviating the situation. It's telling the opponent to go faster. 

That's, like, the point of Dr. Strangelove

2 hours ago, kiko said:

How often did that happen?

Huzzah! 

Telephone! 

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

 

I'm afraid the disagreement runs deep. But as I said before, it doesn't actually matter because you and I have no influence on events whatsoever and both our positions have flaws. From my perspective, many of you guys talk like Dr Strangelove's General Ripper, but I'm also keenly aware that I'm playing the role of Mars Attack's president Maurice.

Mr. President there are one or two points I'd like to make if I may...

1) The Ruskies started this war

2) They started it eight years before they started it, and we started it ourselfs about... say... was it twelve or eleven years before that - oh who remembers? They started it

3) If we were to immediately launch an all-out and coordinated airwave of unmanned, precision-guided, tactical air-space craft that struck the ROADs, the BRIDGES, and the Long-Range Weapons Systems - and HELL, let's make giant bomb-created trenches across any topography that looks too easy on wheeled vehicles while we're at it. We can MAKE A TRENCH IN THE ground FROM THE AIR FROM AMERICA in Ukraine!-      Well, if we did all that we might just stand a damn good chance of stopping this slow-rolling criminal wave right in its tracks. Literally, maybe! 

4) Not one American will die because of this action

5) Hopefully no Ukrainians will die because of our strikes. It's war. Somebody might have been hanging out under the bridge, a local, and we didn't know. We can't help that. 

6) Get Ukraine's permission, and the permission of the American peoples' representatives first

7) Russians will die. They are dying anyway. Less Ukrainians would die. Maybe less Russians would die. We don't have to target their hospitals and mess halls and barracks' anymore. We can break their shit. And, unfortunately, the people they put inside that shit. 

8) It's war

[Jace, Extat]

Zorral, if conflict is the only dialogue that an opponent understands you can't just take it off the table and declare them pariah 

 

I mean you can. Hi, North Korea

But then you just kinda helped create, then washed your hands of, a humanitarian nightmare as a state of an entire peoples' permanent existence 

I mean you can do that. And you can even do that and believe you believe in morals or whatever 

But not if they have nukes, eh? 

And the reliable means to deliver them eh?

 

Meanwhile, I've been sometimes stymied in my book research efforts by the limitations of google. 

Some of these are obvious, right, like sometimes a question is just too complicated or specific for google to know what you're after. It's only a Robot

Then there's other limitations of Google

Like, I get scared that if I google books about how ICBMswork and whether you could disable the fuse/trigger/whatever of one of them mid-flight as part of a scheme to catch it and either relay it up to space with a series of dedicated systems in low orbits or, IDK, drop it in the bottom of the ocean or something - anyway, I get scared that if I google <^ that stuff then scary things will happen to me. Because I don't think you people believe in morals or whatever 

But that's just me

Edited January 26 by whatever...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

A fascinating lecture (in October) from the US Naval War College about the strategic aspects of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine including possible endgames:

 

[Darzin]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I dunno, "escalating conflict against a ruthless dictator with tons of nuclear weapons" was always the standard scenario for doomsday, even during the Cold War... 

Do you consider the Soviet support for North Vietnam escalation? A  lot of leftist criticism I see of this war wants to have it's cake and eat it too, where the US bad for getting involved in Vietnam (which I agree with) but the US is also bad for supporting Ukraine. Not saying this is your position but it's certainly Chomsky's and  fair bit of leftist media's.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Considering the fact that from a Western perspective Soviet leaders and many of their allies were in fact "ruthless dictators", 

This is really begging the question, what about from your perspective? 

[Jace, Extat]

43 minutes ago, whatever... said:

 

Like, I get scared that if I google books about how ICBMswork and whether you could disable the fuse/trigger/whatever of one of them mid-flight as part of a scheme to catch it and either relay it up to space with a series of dedicated systems in low orbits or, IDK, drop it in the bottom of the ocean or something - anyway, I get scared that if I google <^ that stuff then scary things will happen to me. Because I don't think you people believe in morals or whatever 

 

By the way, I bring this up not just to whine. But because, tying into my broader messaging of late, this is a manifestation of anti-privilege 

If FuckFuck Abrams wanted that information up there? About -how- exactly the device works or what he might or might not be !allowed! to know about it? He can tell somebody to tell somebody that he wants to know and eventually somebody will get back to him

I'm afraid if I type the wrong thing into the computer machine somebody will be getting back to me too 

Yeah? 

How's that for a type of privilege that isn't class/wealth based but also totally is because of course it is? 

Edited January 26 by whatever...

[Kalbear]

The good news is that under no circumstances will I ever think that Jace's posts were written by an AI

[Toth]

Meanwhile I'm somehow morbidly curious how the Leopards will fare in this conflict. Turkey had a horrible performance with theirs in their dumb offensive against the Kurds, but then again, they used them unsupported similarly like the Russian tanks did in the early stages of the Ukraine war, so the pictures of flaming wrecks were to be expected. I heard Canada had a good performance with them... but then again, all those missions had been in asymmetrical warfare. I'm crossing my fingers Ukraine will be able to use them to maximum effect just like they did with all the other deliveries, rolling back the front lines and forcing Russia back to the table.

Also have to suddenly think of War Thunder. There the Leopards are depicted as agile, hard-hitting, but fragile. Of course they are also depicted as unable to penetrate the far superior armor of Russian miracle tanks ('cause Russian developers of course)...

[DMC]

40 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

The good news is that under no circumstances will I ever think that Jace's posts were written by an AI

Jace's posts are what happens when AIs get angry.  A frightening amalgamation of HAL, Skynet, and Ultron.

[Wade1865]

Jacelyn (or whatever…) is genuinely a good person.

Protect him at all costs!

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

And yet, as I'm sure you know, there is much evidence of the stabilising effect of a bipolar world order compared to a multipolar one.
Point is, the Doomsday Clock has indeed lost its luster, but it's not wrong.

Well, not in terms of the use of a nuclear weapon actually resulting in the end of the world - i.e. MAD - no.  That was my point - the "doomsday" word choice.

[a free shadow]

On 1/25/2023 at 1:18 PM, Werthead said:

Ukraine would have 168 modern tanks. That's enough to do some real damage.

This will not be a smart question, so only is there is time for it. Why are there so few tanks across all countries and how can so few do real damage? I imagined there are thousands and thousands of them, and rather as supplement but not main measures.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, a free shadow said:

This will not be a smart question, so only is there is time for it. Why are there so few tanks across all countries and how can so few do real damage? I imagined there are thousands and thousands of them, and rather as supplement but not main measures.

This might help, but your instinct is solid - more militaristic countries have a lot of tanks:

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Military/Army/Main-battle-tanks

That said, for a country like Ukraine having 170 tanks is equivalent to several battalions of tanks, which is effective at doing some major pushes. Note that the above numbers are not particularly numbers of ACTIVE USE tanks - most will likely be in some state of repair, maintenance, or are held in reserve for replacements. 

[Gorn]

Simply put, a tank is primarily an offensive weapon, so countries that don't expect to be involved in offensive wars tend to invest their defense budgets elsewhere.

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

The good news is that under no circumstances will I ever think that Jace's posts were written by an AI

But you see, jace was always AI

[Wilbur]

The thing about tanks is that when you use them, you want them to have support.  Such as M1s and Bradleys, or M1s and Apaches, or M1s and A10s.  Never go anywhere alone.

Aka the Battle of 73 Easting: 

 

Edited January 27 by Wilbur
Example of Bradleys being effective vs tanks

[Jace, Extat]

35 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

The thing about tanks is that when you use them, you want them to have support.  Such as M1s and Bradleys, or M1s and Apaches, or M1s and A10s.  Never go anywhere alone.

Aka the Battle of 73 Easting: 

 

I saw this a few years ago and my main takeaway was that a drone can go anywhere a tank can go

[Kalbear]

37 minutes ago, whatever... said:

I saw this a few years ago and my main takeaway was that a drone can go anywhere a tank can go

Sure, but it can't do things like provide cover for infantry, engage and suppress multiple other armor vehicles and take on other tanks easily. It also doesn't get disabled by nets.

[mcbigski]

I'm rooting for any resolution that doesn't include a nuclear exchange.  I wish we had independent media, instead of billionaire owned corporate mouth pieces in lock step with their also suborned government officials.