Ukraine War: David And Goliath

[Bironic]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

For example, it is not clear that a NATO force could achieve air superiority in the region.

Are you serious? You do know that the US alone has the largest Air Force and the third largest Air force in the World (USAirforce and USNavy respectively) and then there's another 32 countries... ca. 3 of those have air forces comparable to russia and all of them are much better trained and some are better equipped... and none of them have lost around 100 airplanes, 100 helicopters, and 130 SAMs and 40 AA Guns & RADARS in the last 2 years...

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The latest attack had Russia using ballistic missile trajectories, which can only be effectively dealt with by Patriot missiles - and those are in short supply. As a result, only 18 of 51 missiles were intercepted. 

You can't probably hope to destroy all incoming aerial threats even if all of Nato gives all the Patriots (or similar systems) they have to Ukraine... And it's economically unfeasible, the territory is too large, those things are extremely expensive... glide bombs, drones, missiles etc. are way cheaper and can be mass produced and imported by Russia...

The only way to stop the Russians is more ammo, More artillery, more Manpads, more drones, more Armored vehicles and tanks. The only way to defeat them is more long range attack capabilities: Taurus Missiles, GLSDB, various ATACMS in the hundreds, AGM 84 SLAM, AGM 154 JSOW, AGM 158 JASSM, BLU 107 Durandal, GBU 28, GBU 27, AGM 88, AIM 120, MBDA Meteor, BGM tomahawk, longer ranged drones and the launchers for these systems: F-16, JAS39 Gripen, F/A 18, Panavia Tornado, HIMARS, MLRS, RQ1 Predator... and obviously large numbers of these things...

Will Ukraine get them in sufficient numbers in a timely fashion: probably not... it's a question of political will in the end, and that just doesn't seem to be there...

 

 

Edited January 8 by Bironic

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Are you serious? You do know that the US alone has the largest Air Force and the third largest Air force in the World (USAirforce and USNavy respectively) and then there's another 32 countries... ca. 3 of those have air forces comparable to russia and all of them are much better trained and some are better equipped... and none of them have lost around 100 airplanes, 100 helicopters, and 130 SAMs and 40 AA Guns in the last 2 years...

Yeah, I'm serious. The US is fighting a war that they planned for in the 90s and practiced against a completely different type of force for the last 20 years. The US is not the only force out there that is learning from the Ukraine war. 

Now, I suspect that they could take care of Russia eventually, but I think it would have significantly more challenges than NATO doctrine expects - and would likely lose a lot more in value than Russia did. In the meantime the US has the most capable aircraft in the world with the world's least experienced air force in dealing with enemies that have anything close to their technology. 

2 minutes ago, Bironic said:

You can't probably hope to destroy all incoming aerial threats even if all of Nato gives all the Patriots (or similar systems) they have to Ukraine... And it's economically unfeasible, the territory is too large, those things are extremely expensive... glide bombs, drones, missiles etc. are way cheaper and can be mass produced and imported by Russia...

You clearly didn't read the link and it shows. Ukraine is specifically asking for more Patriots, and the reason they couldn't down the targets like they've been able to previously is that they're running out of Patriots and have to be selective in what they shoot down. This isn't about defending all the territory; this is about defending the things they're already defending. 

2 minutes ago, Bironic said:

The only way to stop the Russians is more ammo, More artillery, more Manpads, more drones, more Armored vehicles and tanks. The only way to defeat them is more long range attack capabilities: Taurus Missiles, GLSDB, various ATACMS in the hundreds, AGM 84 SLAM, AGM 154 JSOW, AGM 158 JSOW, BLU 107 Durandal, GBU 28, GBU 27, AIM 120, MBDA Meteor, longer ranged drones and the launchers for these systems: F-16, JAS39 Gripen, F/A 18, Panavia Tornado, HIMARS, MLRS, RQ1 Predator... and obviously large numbers of these things...

Will Ukraine get them in sufficient numbers in a timely fashion: probably not... it's a question of political will in the end, and that just doesn't seem to be there...

And again, I ask you to show your work. 

Why do long range attack capabilities (which Ukraine actually has!) matter now? I agree they would have mattered in 2022, but why do they matter now? How do they solve the problems of a very defensive structure backed with mines and artillery and a lack of air superiority? Why do more armored vehicles and tanks matter when Ukraine isn't using the ones it has to a large degree? Russia has shifted a lot of their logistics to different systems than they had in 2022 as well, so taking out one transportation hub for rail is not the devastating blow that it would have been in 2022. 

I keep hearing this as the message and I think you're living in 2022 timeframes. I have so far heard no actual idea on how to break through the Russian lines successfully, and the idea that you can just throw more equipment at the problem is a deeply US one but not one borne out by results. 

There's a very good longform analysis of the difficulties ahead for Ukraine here:

https://www.csis.org/analysis/seizing-initiative-ukraine-waging-war-defense-dominant-world

One of the big keys is that Ukraine had to change their strategies because they could not sustain the personnel attrition rates that they had seen in trying to break things through - which again points to the main thesis I have: Ukraine is running out of people. 

[Gorn]

22 hours ago, Werthead said:

Russian counter-attacks on the Krynsky salient are continuing to be repulsed, with increased Russian complaints about being sent into a grinder where Ukraine has total drone and artillery superiority.

That's an optimistic view. A pessimistic one is that Ukraine has created its own Gallipoli, and it is feeding troops into a tiny, badly supplied bridgehead from which they have no chance of breaking out.

I kept assuming that Krynky was an Ukrainian feint/misdirection, and I was stunned when I realized that it wasn't. When it comes to amphibious landings, either you go big and break out quickly, or they turn into a slow suicide for whatever unfortunate troops you sent there.

[Bironic]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, I'm serious. The US is fighting a war that they planned for in the 90s and practiced against a completely different type of force for the last 20 years. The US is not the only force out there that is learning from the Ukraine war. 

Now, I suspect that they could take care of Russia eventually, but I think it would have significantly more challenges than NATO doctrine expects - and would likely lose a lot more in value than Russia did. In the meantime the US has the most capable aircraft in the world with the world's least experienced air force in dealing with enemies that have anything close to their technology.

I agree with the fact that the US hasn't fought a war on that level, but in the end numbers matter (That's basically the russian playbook) even if Russia manages to down every single F 22 and F 35 that the US has that still leaves plenty of F 18, F 15, F 16, F117, B52, B1, B2; A 10, RQ 4 reaper etc. Its like saying the US navy hasn't fought an on par level opponent since 1945 (which is a factually true statement) and thus could be defeated by the Russian Navy: No it couldn't. Even if the russian navy miracoulously outperforms and sinks two ships for everyone they lose, the would still be overwhelmed by the sheer number of USNAvy ships.. And you said NATO which means US + 32 other countries...

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You clearly didn't read the link and it shows. Ukraine is specifically asking for more Patriots, and the reason they couldn't down the targets like they've been able to previously is that they're running out of Patriots and have to be selective in what they shoot down. This isn't about defending all the territory; this is about defending the things they're already defending.

Obviously they need more and want more. But you can't stop the russians from bombing the shit out of them by intercepting the blows they are launching at them. You have to destroy the russian capability to hit them in the first place. And that means destroying the aircraft on the ground, destroying the hangars & shelters, destroying the runways, destroying the aircraft & ships (before they launch their deadly weapons), destroying the radars, destroying the logistical lines (mainly railways and some key bridges) so that the frontlines were russia has a superiority in ammo and artillery can no longer be supplied and thus simply can't shoot anymore. And for all that you need long range weaponry...

If somebody shoots at you you can certainly don a bulletproof west(I would recommend it!), but it won't stop the other guy from shooting you... and eventually he will hit you...

[Kalbear]

Just now, Bironic said:

I agree with the fact that the US hasn't fought a war on that level, but in the end numbers matter (That's basically the russian playbook) even if Russia manages to down every single F 22 and F 35 that the US has that still leaves plenty of F 18, F 15, F 16, F117, B52, B1, B2; A 10, RQ 4 reaper etc. Its like saying the US navy hasn't fought an on par level opponent since 1945 (which is a factually true statement) and thus could be defeated by the Russian Navy: No it couldn't. Even if the russian navy miracoulously outperforms and sinks two ships for everyone they lose, the would still be overwhelmed by the sheer number of USNAvy ships.. And you said NATO which means US + 32 other countries...

The US has not done a full mobilization for war in a long, long time. How much of that above force they could bring to bear at once is very, very unknown. How long they could sustain it, however, is really well-known: about 2 months. That's one of the hard lessons that Ukraine has taught us - that we simply do not have the munition and maintenance logistical capabilities to sustain any kind of longer attack at full power. And given that NATO largely uses smart weapons that gets even worse. In the battle of Mosul the US and allies found themselves running short on munitions and that was only for 3 months time in a limited engagement. 

I'm not saying that the US could necessarily be defeated. I'm saying that, much like what's happening with Ukraine, the defender will have a major advantage and NATO victory is not assured - and more importantly, FAST NATO victory is not assured. 

Just now, Bironic said:

Obviously they need more and want more. But you can't stop the russians from bombing the shit out of them by intercepting the blows they are launching at them. You have to destroy the russian capability to hit them in the first place. And that means destroying the aircraft on the ground, destroying the hangars & shelters, destroying the runways, destroying the aircraft & ships (before they launch their deadly weapons), destroying the radars, destroying the logistical lines (mainly railways and some key bridges) so that the frontlines were russia has a superiority in ammo and artillery can no longer be supplied and thus simply can't shoot anymore. And for all that you need long range weaponry...

If somebody shoots at you you can certainly don a bulletproof west(I would recommend it!), but it won't stop the other guy from shooting you... and eventually he will hit you...

So you're suggesting giving Ukraine the means to blow up the airfields and shelters that exist...in Russia and Belarus? Because that's where most of this is coming from. Good luck selling that to the West. 

[Toth]

I feel like the conclusion to draw from that is not that the west can't ever possibly beat someone in a prolonged fight, but actually rather that it's pathetic we haven't managed in 2 years of war to set up a couple dozen ammunition factories...

[Bironic]

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

the defender will have a major advantage and NATO victory is assured - and more importantly, FAST NATO victory is not assured.

Fixed that for you. the longer a war goes on the more it becomes a matter of who has more. That's why germany lost both world wars and why russia thinks it can win against ukraine if it hangs on and drags the whole thing out. and thats why russia can't hope to win against NATO, which is part of the reason why they attacked Ukraine instead of the baltics which would have been much easier to conquer(but those tiny countries are defended by NATO). Nukes would obviously change the equation...

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So you're suggesting giving Ukraine the means to blow up the airfields and shelters that exist...in Russia and Belarus? Because that's where most of this is coming from. Good luck selling that to the West. 

It would definitely be legal and completely within their rights, the law of war, international law & conventions and custom to attack whatever military target there is in russia.

Would the west agree to those terms of engagement? No.

Would Ukraine have to strike Russia proper? I doubt it, probably it would be sufficient to blow up whatever they have within Ukraine in its 1991 borders and within international waters...

Would the West give Ukraine those capabilities? I highly doubt it. They haven't given them so far, why would they change that now, where support for Ukraine seems to be waning and the populace is weary of this war... The US which is by far the most capable military supporter is in a complete blockade since fall 2023 and it's almost certainly not going to change before January 2025 and by then the war might be so bad for Ukraine that it will be too late. And if trump or the Republicans win, there will be no help.

To the manpower issue: that is a major issue in Ukraine... They do have only about a quarter of the russian population and they are less likely to grind them down to the last man. They have so far refrained from calling up most of the 18-27 year olds, but I doubt that that will be possible if they really want to continue this war. Which they might not want to.

In the end it boils down to political will. Putin definitely wants to conquer Ukraine no matter the cost. While the west wants Ukraine to win in a much smaller degree, and is certainly not doing it no matter the cost.

 

 

 

Edited January 8 by Bironic

[Makk]

45 minutes ago, Gorn said:

That's an optimistic view. A pessimistic one is that Ukraine has created its own Gallipoli, and it is feeding troops into a tiny, badly supplied bridgehead from which they have no chance of breaking out.

I kept assuming that Krynky was an Ukrainian feint/misdirection, and I was stunned when I realized that it wasn't. When it comes to amphibious landings, either you go big and break out quickly, or they turn into a slow suicide for whatever unfortunate troops you sent there.

IMO its more a fixing operation in that it is forcing/enticing Russia to commit troops to the area. It is the one area of the country that Ukraine currently has air and tactical superiority thanks to the drones, no Russian jamming systems, and elevation from the north side of the river giving artillery a significant advantage. They had a serious problem due to the Russian aviation and glide bombs, but knocking down 4 jets in the area has made the Russians go very quiet with aviation for now. Currently Russia is just throwing away troops and equipment to a swarm of $500 drones.

IMO Ukraine can't breakthrough in that area without a massive increase in equipment, and even then it would be very risky. Go South 30-50 kms into the hills and the Russians will have the height and be out of range of artillery from the North side of the river. They can't even push in significant reinforcements because if the Russians did make a focused push the Ukrainians would not have time to retreat. But if the Russians want to keep making stupid assaults in areas they shouldn't, let them.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Kalbear, the reason more equipment matters is because it saves lives. Soldiers need to move back and forth to the front and if hit by enemy fire while riding in a CV90 they live to fight another day, while they’d be dead if they travelled by car. Artillery and fighter jets save lives because they take out enemy artillery and also because the Russians must be more careful in how close they can go with their own artillery, bombers and helicopters. Air defence systems save lives for obvious reasons.

As you said yourself, one of the main risks for Ukraine is running out of personnel, so every life saved is important. That’s why more military aid to Ukraine matters. 

[Kalbear]

18 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Fixed that for you. the longer a war goes on the more it becomes a matter of who has more. That's why germany lost both world wars and why russia thinks it can win against ukraine if it hangs on and drags the whole thing out. and thats why russia can't hope to win against NATO, which is part of the reason why they attacked Ukraine instead of the baltics which would have been much easier to conquer(but those tiny countries are defended by NATO). Nukes would obviously change the equation...

Yeah, I disagree and I think you're objectively wrong. Vietnam was not won by the country who had more. 

18 minutes ago, Bironic said:

It would definitely be legal and completely within their rights, the law of war, international law & conventions and custom to attack whatever military target there is in russia.

Would the west agree to those terms of engagement? No.

Would Ukraine have to strike Russia proper? I doubt it, probably it would be sufficient to blow up whatever they have within Ukraine in its 1991 borders and within international waters...

Not if you're wanting Ukraine to attack the airfields that Russian planes are coming from, it won't be sufficient. 

18 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Would the West give Ukraine those capabilities? I highly doubt it. They haven't given them so far, why would they change that now, where support for Ukraine seems to be waning and the populace is weary of this war... The US which is by far the most capable military supporter is in a complete blockade since fall 2023 and it's almost certainly not going to change before January 2025 and by then the war might be so bad for Ukraine that it will be too late. And if trump or the Republicans win, there will be no help.

The West has specifically said none of the resources given should be used to attack targets in Russia. Period. Russia also has that as one of their red lines for escalation. 

Which is again why I ask how long-range weaponry is going to help when most of the targets are in Russia. 

18 minutes ago, Bironic said:

To the manpower issue: that is a major issue in Ukraine... They do have only about a quarter of the russian population and they are less likely to grind them down to the last man. They have so far refrained from calling up most of the 18-27 year olds, but I doubt that that will be possible if they really want to continue this war. Which they might not want to.

In the end it boils down to political will. Putin definitely wants to conquer Ukraine no matter the cost. While the west wants Ukraine to win in a much smaller degree, and is certainly not doing it no matter the cost.

It still matters more what Ukraine can do. The West can give all the weapons it wants to but if there is no one to use them they won't matter in the least.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Kalbear, the reason more equipment matters is because it saves lives. Soldiers need to move back and forth to the front and if hit by enemy fire while riding in a CV90 they live to fight another day, while they’d be dead if they travelled by car.

Please point out to me where Ukrainian troops are currently moving by car, anywhere. This ain't April 2022 where Ukrainians are driving around in 4-wheelers taking on APCs. 

5 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Artillery and fighter jets save lives because they take out enemy artillery and also because the Russians must be more careful in how close they can go with their own artillery, bombers and helicopters.

Please point out where Ukraine is suffering from not having enough artillery to use. The problem is not the guns, it's the fire itself (and to a lesser extent the maintenance of those guns which are being used well beyond what was expected of them). They can probably use more, but it's not nearly as desperate a situation as it was in 2022. Plus the problem still remains being able to actually supply them with the ammunition needed to fire in the rates they have. 

Now, fighters - maybe? But F16s aren't going to beat S300s and S400s, and you still need qualified pilots and training. Ukraine only has so much of that. Can the West give enough F16s to give Ukraine air superiority? Very unlikely. 

5 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Air defence systems save lives for obvious reasons.

On that I agree. Ukraine could use significant air defense capabilities both for their cities and for their troops. Having Patriot systems being able to be used to take out planes would be a major benefit as an example. That won't help the breakthrough, but may help with attrition. 

5 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

As you said yourself, one of the main risks for Ukraine is running out of personnel, so every life saved is important. That’s why more military aid to Ukraine matters. 

More military aid absolutely matters, but that wasn't what I was arguing about. My point is that the things that people are clamoring to give to Ukraine are not nearly as crucial now as they were then, and begging for tanks and APCs when Ukraine isn't even using the ones they have - because they're not effective in the things they're doing - is pointless. 

[Bironic]

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, I disagree and I think you're objectively wrong. Vietnam was not won by the country who had more.

Ah yes it makes total sense to compare a war fought in a jungle-swamp-mountain-urban environment with a hostile population supported by a great power with the war in Ukraine where none of the above applies. In forests mountains and urban environments infantry reigns supreme. In flat open ground as most of Ukraine is Air superiority and Armored vehicles and artillery superiority matter.

 

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not if you're wanting Ukraine to attack the airfields that Russian planes are coming from, it won't be sufficient.

A lot of the airfields (and especially the ones that are important because they are close enough to the front lines, but far enough out of HImars range) are within Ukraine. there are diminishing returns if they have to fly their sorties out of russia to attack robotyne f.e. The same is true for the black sea fleet, the radars command posts, logistical hubs, staging areas etc.

 

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The West has specifically said none of the resources given should be used to attack targets in Russia. Period. Russia also has that as one of their red lines for escalation.

Can you give me the full list of the red lines we have so far crossed without any "escalation" on the russian side? I have lost count. Russia has escalated the war on 24.2.2022, they haven't said, let's not use tanks or fighter jets, or cruise missiles or cluster munitions because NATO/Ukraine might see that as an "escalation". They can no longer escalate! unless they want to go nuclear. Which they won't. And it should be up to Ukraine to decide if they want to "escalate" as you call it since they would be the ones that would suffer from such an escalation and so far I have yet to hear from an Ukrainian let's not give us ATACMS, TAURUS; JASSM etc. because we fear Putin might escalate. They are already suffering from the escalation on 24.2.2022, if they see a chance to stop it by giving them long range weaponry then let's give it to them.

But alas the west won't which is the point where we both agree.

Edited January 8 by Bironic

[Erik of Hazelfield]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Please point out to me where Ukrainian troops are currently moving by car, anywhere. This ain't April 2022 where Ukrainians are driving around in 4-wheelers taking on APCs. 

Please point out where Ukraine is suffering from not having enough artillery to use. The problem is not the guns, it's the fire itself (and to a lesser extent the maintenance of those guns which are being used well beyond what was expected of them). They can probably use more, but it's not nearly as desperate a situation as it was in 2022. Plus the problem still remains being able to actually supply them with the ammunition needed to fire in the rates they have. 

Now, fighters - maybe? But F16s aren't going to beat S300s and S400s, and you still need qualified pilots and training. Ukraine only has so much of that. Can the West give enough F16s to give Ukraine air superiority? Very unlikely. 

On that I agree. Ukraine could use significant air defense capabilities both for their cities and for their troops. Having Patriot systems being able to be used to take out planes would be a major benefit as an example. That won't help the breakthrough, but may help with attrition. 

More military aid absolutely matters, but that wasn't what I was arguing about. My point is that the things that people are clamoring to give to Ukraine are not nearly as crucial now as they were then, and begging for tanks and APCs when Ukraine isn't even using the ones they have - because they're not effective in the things they're doing - is pointless. 

The words were from Zelenskyy giving a speech by phone link on a Swedish defence conference yesterday. He thanked for the aid and specifically mentioned the Archer artillery system as saving Ukrainian lives, and back in August he said the same about the CV90. I don’t know about your statement they’re not even using the ones they have, but both Sweden and Denmark are giving more and they are also setting up a factory in Ukraine for the CV90 so I doubt they have more than they can use. 

For the tanks you’re probably right. The dense, artillery guarded mine fields render them ineffective. 

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Ah yes it makes total sense to compare a war fought in a jungle-swamp-mountain-urban environment with a hostile population supported by a great power with the war in Ukraine where none of the above applies. In forests mountains and urban environments infantry reigns supreme. In flat open ground as most of Ukraine is Air superiority and Armored vehicles and artillery superiority matter.

You're the one who made a flat statement. 

That said it ain't like Russia doesn't control many urban environments that also need to be freed. As to the 'flat open ground', well, we're seeing the major limitations of that doctrine with massive fortifications, minefields and protected emplacements stopping that open ground advance cold. 

Shockingly warfare is not simple and numerical advantages are not the only thing that decide conflicts.

16 minutes ago, Bironic said:

A lot of the airfields (and especially the ones that are important because they are close enough to the front lines, but far enough out of HImars range) are within Ukraine. there are diminishing returns if they have to fly their sorties out of russia to attack robotyne f.e.

And yet most of them do. Probably because those airfields in Ukraine are far more vulnerable - both to partisan attacks and to longer-range fires. 

16 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Can you give me the full list of the red lines we have so far crossed without any "escalation" on the russian side? I have lost count. Russia has escalated the war on 24.2.2022, they haven't said, let's not use tanks or fighter jets, or cruise missiles or cluster munitions because NATO/Ukraine might see that as an "escalation". They can no longer escalate! unless they want to go nuclear. Which they won't.

You lack imagination. 

On the red lines that we have crossed - as far as I know the answer is 'none'. Russia has said that they will take any attack using Western weapons provided to Ukraine on Russian soil quite badly, and so far we've taken that seriously. Beyond that I don't know of any other lines that we've willingly crossed. 

Something Russia has not done so far is attack staging areas outside of Ukraine. They certainly could - Polish bases are well within range - but they have not. They almost certainly will if Ukraine uses western weaponry. They could also start hitting civilians significantly more than they have been doing. 

And yes, they can use nuclear weapons. The idea that Putin won't do something when everyone told me that Putin wouldn't dare invade Ukraine to start with is laughable. One of the big no-no areas in Putin's worldview is the apparent invulnerability of Russia; if Ukraine actually started heavily attacking Russian cities you bet your ass he'd escalate. 

16 minutes ago, Bironic said:

And it should be up to Ukraine to decide if they want to "escalate" as you call it since they would be the ones that would suffer from such an escalation and so far I have yet to hear from an Ukrainian let's not give us ATACMS, TAURUS; JASSM etc. because we fear Putin might escalate. They are already suffering from the escalation on 24.2.2022, if they see a chance to stop it by giving them long range weaponry then let's give it to them.

Shockingly provoking a nation into attacking other nations is something that is not just crucial to Ukraine. Making Russia attack NATO nations or doing other things doesn't just affect Ukraine. Heck, the current effect is already unacceptable to a lot of the West - the inflation and economic damage the war has caused is pissing a lot of people off. 

In any case the answer is no - it is not up to Ukraine to use the weapons given to it in whatever way it chooses because the West rightly fears Russian escalation, and Russia escalating is not contained solely to Ukraine.

8 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

The words were from Zelenskyy giving a speech by phone link on a Swedish defence conference yesterday. He thanked for the aid and specifically mentioned the Archer artillery system as saving Ukrainian lives, and back in August he said the same about the CV90. I don’t know about your statement they’re not even using the ones they have, but both Sweden and Denmark are giving more and they are also setting up a factory in Ukraine for the CV90 so I doubt they have more than they can use. 

They need to make more of all of the things to replace operational losses but the idea that they're using a carpool is ridiculous. They're probably replacing some of the old Russian BMPs that they had. Bradleys have been crazy good for them too and have acted as the best of all worlds at times - being able to act as an APC and as a tank killer - but that's still not something that is going to clear a minefield. 

To be clear I'm sure more modern things would be helpful, but I don't think they're crucial at this point, and I would much rather focus on giving Ukraine weapons that will actually have a chance of having them win the war, not make things less bad. 
ETA: this is an article from this summer, pointing out that what Ukraine needs is better logistics of maintaining the systems they have, not more of it:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/19/allies-main-effort-for-ukraine-shifting-from-donating-weapons-to-fixing-them-00107181

Which talks to my point more. I agree more aid is needed, but the kinds of things needed are things that the West doesn't have just lying around. It can't airdrop factories that can make munitions and repair bays. This is kind of a big deal because it's also a significant flaw in the West's logistics too. 

 

Edited January 8 by Kalbear

[Bironic]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

On the red lines that we have crossed - as far as I know the answer is 'none'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

Care to have a glance at it?

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That said it ain't like Russia doesn't control many urban environments that also need to be freed. As to the 'flat open ground', well, we're seeing the major limitations of that doctrine with massive fortifications, minefields and protected emplacements stopping that open ground advance cold.

The funny fact about those minefields is that you can't clear them because you get shelled immediately when you try to do it...

Now when russia is not capable of shelling you while you do it, what do you think happens? (basically exactly what seems to happen now to Ukraine: they have to retreat, men without ammo and weapons are of no use)

This is why they need long range weaponry: they can kill the artillery and the logistics supplying the frontlines from afar and the front lines run out of ammo. Right now all the staging areas are around 90km from the front lines, once they're in russia (becuase the ones within ukraine get shelled constantly) they can no longer support those front lines and they have to retreat closer to the russian border. Look at what that single atacms attack in fall has done to the russian attack helicopter fleet (which was responsible for stopping any tanks or armored vehicle by ukraine that dared to attack the russians).

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You lack imagination.

I don't. I do have quite a vivid fantasy , but that's maybe better spared for a different topic .

 

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Something Russia has not done so far is attack staging areas outside of Ukraine. They certainly could - Polish bases are well within range - but they have not. They almost certainly will if Ukraine uses western weaponry. They could also start hitting civilians significantly more than they have been doing.

The reason why Putin attacked Ukraine is because he underestimated Ukrainian and western reaction. He's not stupid, he won't make that mistake again. If he attacks Poland or any other Nato member he is screwed and he knows that. He wants to conquer Ukraine and he still has a realistic chance to achieve that. he doesn't want to open a second front against Nato, because that would make his goal absolutely unachievable. 

 

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Heck, the current effect is already unacceptable to a lot of the West - the inflation and economic damage the war has caused is pissing a lot of people off.

True, it is pissing a lot of people off and some even rightly so. Which is why i am less than enticed about some of the sanctions and don't really believe that some of them achieve much other than pissing people off.

But compared to what ukraine is suffering our woes are minuscular. it helps to keep some perspective. WW2 in switzerland wasn't a piece of cake, but it was compared to WW2 in Poland.

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

if Ukraine actually started heavily attacking Russian cities you bet your ass he'd escalate.

I don't think they should attack cities. I was talking about military assets. and i was also specyfying that most analysts seem to believe it won't be necessary to attack russia proper as long as every single logistics hub, barrack, command post, airfield, bridge, railway, radar etc within Ukraine is destroyed.

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

To be clear I'm sure more modern things would be helpful, but I don't think they're crucial at this point, and I would much rather focus on giving Ukraine weapons that will actually have a chance of having them win the war, not make things less bad.

Which is an argument against Air defense systems and for long range attack weapons, artillery, drones and ammo. Why not do both?

[Kalbear]

40 minutes ago, Bironic said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

Care to have a glance at it?

Thanks, I hadn't seen that!

I especially appreciate that link because it shows a whole bunch of red lines and the consequences for breaking them. So...there have been plenty of red lines, and that has resulted in escalations. Thanks!

40 minutes ago, Bironic said:

The funny fact about those minefields is that you can't clear them because you get shelled immediately when you try to do it...

Now when russia is not capable of shelling you while you do it, what do you think happens? (basically exactly what seems to happen now to Ukraine: they have to retreat, men without ammo and weapons are of no use)

This is why they need long range weaponry: they can kill the artillery and the logistics supplying the frontlines from afar and the front lines run out of ammo. Right now all the staging areas are around 90km from the front lines, once they're in russia (becuase the ones within ukraine get shelled constantly) they can no longer support those front lines and they have to retreat closer to the russian border. Look at what that single atacms attack in fall has done to the russian attack helicopter fleet (which was responsible for stopping any tanks or armored vehicle by ukraine that dared to attack the russians).

Per the Ukrainians this isn't an accurate assessment of it. I'm sure it'd help, but it's not sufficient for their needs. It's also probably the case that the entire Western arsenal doesn't contain enough long-range fires to destroy the amount of artillery that Russia has in place for these fortifications. HIMARS and ATAMCS aren't meant to be used as counterbattery fire and they're very expensive. We don't have that much sitting around, and we can't make that much either. It wouldn't be sufficient to stop the artillery fire to allow for demining. 

40 minutes ago, Bironic said:

The reason why Putin attacked Ukraine is because he underestimated Ukrainian and western reaction. He's not stupid, he won't make that mistake again. If he attacks Poland or any other Nato member he is screwed and he knows that. He wants to conquer Ukraine and he still has a realistic chance to achieve that. he doesn't want to open a second front against Nato, because that would make his goal absolutely unachievable. 

The first reason - why Putin attacked - is not accurate on a lot of levels, but the biggest one is not that he underestimated the response of the west - it's that he misunderstood Ukrainian resolve. He expected to be able to take the country in a few days, and he expected Ukrainians to welcome Russia. This is because Putin sincerely believed his narrative and promoted people who backed that narrative. He's not stupid, but his version of reality does not match actual reality.

The second part of it, attacking NATO - that he KNOWS it'll be suicide - is exactly what I heard about the first reason. I agree that he's not stupid, but both the information that he has about how the world is and his motivations are not at all what you think they are or aligned with those viewpoints. As an example, Putin almost certainly believes that Russia attacking the Baltic countries would not trigger a full NATO response. He might even believe that to be the case about Poland. Is he right? Who knows! But it is a deeply held, sincere belief, and one that he'll likely act on. He strongly believes (and not without reason) that Western appetite for war is low and they will sell out their own countries for appeasement sake. 

Now, would attacking a Poland airbase in response to Ukrainian flights out of said airbase trigger NATO? Possibly, but unlikely, especially if Russia already had said clearly 'don't do that'. 

I would also point out that some red lines are made very publicly and loudly, and some red lines are made behind the scenes and have a lot more weight. The 'don't attack in Russia' was made repeatedly and privately to Biden, and that one he seems to be taking very seriously. 

40 minutes ago, Bironic said:

But compared to what ukraine is suffering our woes are minuscular. it helps to keep some perspective. WW2 in switzerland wasn't a piece of cake, but it was compared to WW2 in Poland.

Doesn't really matter given that it's those western nations that are arming Ukraine, and those western nations that can choose the level of suffering they want to endure. 

Now don't get me wrong - I think we should be giving Ukraine anything that we can possibly do. I thought that years ago. I think that any short-term suffering that the west suffers is worth the longer term gains of defeating an adventurous Russian state and showcasing Western power to the rest of the world. I think it's the right thing to do, too. But the idea that cushy Americans are going to care that others are suffering - we don't even want to be inconvenienced to help our own people. There's also the political expediency part - that a recession or inflation hurts a democratic president, meaning that it makes it more likely Trump gets in office, so let's not do that. I don't believe that either but a whole lot of other people do. 

40 minutes ago, Bironic said:

I don't think they should attack cities. I was talking about military assets. and i was also specyfying that most analysts seem to believe it won't be necessary to attack russia proper as long as every single logistics hub, barrack, command post, airfield, bridge, railway, radar etc within Ukraine is destroyed.

Kinda hard to attack railways, bridges, airfields and other logistic areas without attacking cities. 

40 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Which is an argument against Air defense systems and for long range attack weapons, artillery, drones and ammo. Why not do both?

Because a) there is only so much appetite for doing aid, b) there is only so much money, and c) giving ineffective but showy resources is not that useful but then gives the impression that it should be useful, so why isn't Ukraine doing better?

[The Anti-Targ]

If there is the will in the west for Ukraine to win then the only red line that matters is the nuclear one. Every escalation and counter-escalation in conventional warfare is just how war goes. Where do the NATO strategists think Russia's nuclear red line is? If Ukraine's support countries are afraid of conventional Russian red lines then the war was lost in Feb 2022. If they are also afraid to play chicken with Russia's nuclear red lines then it also meant a loss was more likely than a win back in Feb 2022. If Putin is willing to sacrifice some Russian cities to US/French/British nukes then if the west is not willing to sacrifice the same then it should never have given support to Ukraine's defence. 

Without NATO member (and esp the USA) will (and practical support) for Ukraine to win the inevitable outcome is Ukraine loses. Better for the ordinary people of Ukraine, Russia and the world if Ukraine loses quickly rather than slowly. It seems like NATO member political will just isn't there for a Ukraine win.

Once the guns fall silent in Ukraine and the Russian army takes Kiev, next cab of the rank, China takes back Taiwan.

The west can't afford to let Russia win, but it doesn't want to pay for Ukraine to win.

[Padraig]

I was curious about what the €50bn aid the US was planning to give Ukraine would represent.  Do we know?  I did a quick check but couldn't find details.  Given the discussion about what is the best type of military aid, I did wonder what the US was proposing.

Germany today made a call for more military aid to Ukraine from the EU.

https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/brussels-playbook/scholz-calls-on-eu-countries-to-arm-ukraine/#:~:text=The plan would see the,its mid-term budget review.

I don't think it is true that countries don't want to pay for Ukraine to win.  Only one country is stopping EU (non-military) aid of €50bn and the above article suggests there is hope there too (and even without Hungary's approval, it is expected that money will be approved from all the other EU countries).  The Republicans in the US would arguably always have stopped military aid.  They now simply have the power to do so.  Generally, i'm not thinking that attitudes have changed as much as it seems.  Although, this is still obviously a bad situation to be in.

Anyhow, my fear remains that at the moment Russia is making very slow but incremental progress.  The right type of military aid may stabilise that (or allow the Ukraine to make some small bits of progress).  I'm just really worried that there is no realistic amount of military aid possible from the US/EU which would enable Ukraine to succeed in a major offensive war (right now, they are in defence).  Victory requires something wild to happen in Russia.

I hope i'm wrong.  But Putin is not interested in stopping the war, so the only option is to keep throwing resources at Ukraine and hoping things eventually work out.

Wars are ultimately about resources and resolve.  Putin thought he had more of both.  He was wrong but things can change.

Edited January 9 by Padraig

[Werthead]

28 minutes ago, Padraig said:

Anyhow, my fear remains that at the moment Russia is making very slow but incremental progress.

Ukraine regained more territory than Russia took in 2023 (although that wasn't much to start with). Russian gains around Avdiivka have stalled, and Ukraine has resumed offensive operations around Bakhmut, regaining some territory (not a lot) there. Ukraine also regained a chunk of the land Russia took in last autumn's stalled Kreminna offensive, and has secured that bridgehead over the Dnipro (even if there's not much else they can do with it).

It's not a lot compared to the full liberation of Kyiv, Kharkiv and the area around Kherson city in 2022, sure, but Russian progress is almost non-existent at the moment.

That could change, of course. But I'd rather be pessimistic when that happens rather than before!

Russia also lost a TOS-1 thermobaric missile launcher today, which by some counts might mean they've lost 50% of their entire pre-2022 stock.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Padraig said:

The right type of military aid may stabilise that (or allow the Ukraine to make some small bits of progress). 

IMO, if Russia can drag things along and keep throwing its people into the meat grinder the necessary military aid will be lots of combat boots, pre-filled with non-Ukrainian feet, and the live bodies that go with them. It may start with non-combatants, but I think it will eventually need combat troops who may not be on the front lines taking territory, but they would be occupying troops stationed behind the front lines in re-occupied territory relieving Ukraine from the burden of having to leave their own soldiers behind the font lines in order to secure the territorial gains and supply lines. But I imagine they will see action vs Russian troops.

That's why the west needs to give the middle finger to every Russian red line if it wants Ukraine to win. If it lets Russia dictate the terms of engagement it's a losing strategy.