Jump to content

Battlefront.com

Administrators
  • Posts

    40,712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Battlefront.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Battlefront.com's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Another article from The Hill that is Ukraine related. This is an OpEd piece by a Rutgers professor who is saying many of the same things I (and others) said a few pages ago about time NOT being on Russia's side. In particular he made the point that the side with the most stuff is not predestined to win. I mean, the US has the most stuff on planet Earth and is allied with the rest of the top countries, yet who governs Afghanistan now? https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4538381-why-time-is-not-on-russias-side/ Steve
  2. Things in Africa continue to evolve based on the war in Ukraine. Niger was unhappy with the US' concerns about the coup government becoming closer to Russia and Iran. This then led to Niger saying all 1000 US troops based there have to leave the country. Hmm... I wonder who made that decision? https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4539830-niger-ends-us-military-deal/ Steve
  3. Correct. "Last Mile/KM" logistics are just as important as first mile and everything inbetween. If someone goes to a store to get something (especially an essential good, like food) and is told that what they are looking for isn't there, they really won't care that it made it 999km to a rail depot. They only care about the last 1km because that determines if they get it or not. Steve
  4. Cool! This is the sort of "knock on effect" that I've been waiting to see since sanctions went into effect. Russia's economy, for the most part, is based on free market principles. The tools of the government to manipulate those forces are big and powerful, but ultimately it's someone in the Kremlin swinging a hammer to kill ants. There are so, so, so many ways for the economy to fail and Russia is going to show us a lot of new ones. Trucking is the heart of all modern economies, including Russia's. The more stress on them the more stress on the economy on the whole. The economy can adapt to strains on transportation, but the threshold for higher costs is crossed quickly. Costs can only increase so much before there's damage to services. There's only so much damage to services before there's real harm. As always, there's non way to gauge how long it will take for Russia's economy to collapse, but it's signs like this that indicate we're a little closer now than we were before. All progress should be welcomed. Steve
  5. One can understand Russians today are the product of generations of abuse and ignorance, yet still agree with this: There is no reasonable way to expect anything different from Russia, or Russians, without a complete change of their political and societal institutions. Realistically, the only way that will happen is if the entirety of Russia ceases to exist as we know it. It must break itself into pieces and those pieces must be humbled into understanding their place in this world is not as everybody's master. This is the primary reason the West should be helping Ukraine defeat Russia. Not just because Ukraine needs help, but because Russia needs to be defeated for the rest of the world's sake. Steve
  6. Yup, he definitely would. Just like I believe that if Crimeans were given a free and fair choice of joining Russia or staying with Ukraine they would have chosen Russia by a pretty good margin. But Putin's not one to take a chance of it turning out differently, nor will he be satisfied with a "mandate" of 51%. So yeah, he makes sure things are faked because he's not only assured of the outcome, but also it being overwhelming. Absolutely. As The_Capt just wrote, democracy is a lot more than just ballots that are properly counted. If countries with some tradition of democracy and maintain free/fair elections have trouble keeping autocrats from seizing power, then a country without any such history or institution doesn't stand a chance. Steve
  7. All of this is true. There can be no free vote without a free society. Period. I know we've said this many times already, but Russians are very akin to the "battered wife syndrome" in that they accept their fate because they think they deserve it, don't know it could be otherwise, think it could be worse, etc. Whatever the rationalizations are, the end result is the same... people who are conditioned to support something that objectively isn't worthy of their support. And every time we have this discussion I remind people that even in the most free, open, and old democracies there are people who exactly the same as the Russian electorate. A strong indication that biology plays a very strong role in extremist culture. Add societal apathy and selfishness to the mix and the numbers of people willing to support an authoritarian leader goes up considerably. Russians have never known democratic values, therefore they can't possibly understand their benefits. Which is one reason, perhaps THE reason, that Russia is waging war on Ukraine with such viciousness. Ukrainians, on the whole, "get it". The last thing Putin needs is them showing Russians a new way to live. Steve
  8. Exactly. What I think our Ukrainian friends are pointing out is that Putin genuinely has a large base of support that approve of him being President. That is absolutely the case, therefore if there had been an election and he didn't kill off his opposition he might still have been elected President. However, to say this was an election is absolutely wrong on every single factual basis imaginable. As has already been stated, this was a predetermined propaganda exercise. The appearance of it being an election are deliberate, just as plastic fruit in a bowel is designed to look like real fruit. Steve
  9. It's been a while since we've dug into the "court politics" inside of the Kremlin. With Putin's sham election complete, now is a good time to look at what might be going on behind the scenes. Here's a recent in-depth look at Russian politics (the real ones) from The Atlantic Council. I've only started reading it, but it looks quite interesting as it's looking at who might succeed Putin when he eventually retires (likely death in office, but who knows). https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/russia-tomorrow/all-the-autocrats-men-the-court-politics-of-putins-inner-circle/ Steve
  10. Thanks! It's been too long since we've had a Ukrainian frontline pet vid. Much needed! Steve
  11. And look at the very nice hole in the roof of the admin building. That certainly isn't Photoshop Steve
  12. It is interesting to contemplate a situation similar to the left bank of the Dnepr where Russia can't dislodge a bridgehead into its lines (in this case prewar border). With the last batch of incursions I was sure that the free-Russian fighters would eventually withdraw and they did. But this time? Hmmm... I don't know, maybe they are planning on staying. Even a symbolic occupation of undisputed Russian territory is a pretty significant development. Steve
  13. This is what we've been saying since late February 2022... Putin has no Plan B because there is no Plan B to be had. Well, except surrendering to end all of this misery. Show of hands who thinks Putin has even contemplated that? Since February 2022 I have not been at all surprised, not even a little, that Putin has kept the war going. He has no realistic option but to continue it. What has surprised me is how incompetently Plan A has been tweaked and reapplied. Even with my deeply held belief that Russia Sux™ I expected they would have figured out SOMETHING other than meat assaults up until this point. That being said, it does seem that Russia is finally getting better at some things. It's recent drone strikes on previously untouched high profile Western assets (HIMARS and Patriot) are definitely a major improvement for them after more than 1.5 years of coming up empty. The use of glide bombs, though crude, was also effective and forced Ukraine to do something to counter, though we don't quite fully understand what it is. Improving the quantity of FPV drones and the effectiveness of using them is another thing to be troubled by. The trouble for Russia is that all of these improvements are coming late and they don't have an immediate payoff in terms of Russia's stated objectives of occupying much of Ukraine. All they are doing, at least currently, is making Ukraine pay a higher price for keeping the war going. And it's not nearly as much as the price Ukraine is imposing upon Russia for continuing the war. The refineries, air assets, and naval assets lost within the past few weeks are all extremely deep and long term wounds for Russia. Steve
  14. Yup. Even a quick check of the facts shows that there's significant flaws in the theory that Russia can sustain its losses. At best one can argue that Russia has enough to keep the war going, though that premise relies heavily on Ukraine being motivated to surrender rather soon. Like 2024. And there's no sign of that on the horizon. Steve
  15. That's not what was being debated. Kraft is making the argument that, defensively, there's parity between the two sides and that means parity in casualties. The evidence doesn't support this notion and, anyway, it's not particularly relevant since Russia has shown no signs (or motivation) to cease wasteful offensive action. It's not ideal for either side because Russia does not have endless resources any more than Ukraine does. As has been stated 1000s of times here, it isn't about who has more stuff it is about who gives up first. The two are related, but quantity doesn't include ability or will. In fact, arguably Ukraine has vastly more material resources than Russia does (provided Western aid continues). Since Ukraine is facing extinction, they have a vastly superior reason to sacrifice manpower than does Russia. So in theory if it is a contest of attrition, Ukraine has an advantage. OK, so let's get back to casing out a "frozen conflict" since we haven't done that in a while. Let's say Russia finally figures out that attacking isn't sustainable and it goes on the defensive. What happens? Let's presume that the lethality at the frontline is roughly the same for both sides, which means Russia gets some advantage because it has more stuff and Ukraine gets some advantage because it presents fewer targets. Parity. But what else is going on? How many ships is each likely to sink in the months that follow the end of ground offensives? Ukraine has none, Russia has many and Ukraine's ability to reach out and destroy them is increasing while Russia's ability to use its navy is decreasing. Ukraine's ability to destroy critical Russian infrastructure is also increasing, seemingly exponentially. Russia has not found any way to thwart these growing attacks, therefore each passing day means growing disruption and costs to Russia's economy that, so far, Russia has been unable to do to Ukraine. Russia's airforce is also under renewed pressure on the ground, not to mention the air. Ukraine is hitting Russia airbases and repair facilities 100s of KMs behind the lines. What is Russia going to do... relocate it's entire airforce to the Far East? Then there's the cumulative effects of sanctions. We see their impact taking nibbles and even some bites out of Russia's ability to function as a modern economy. Those problems are compounding and will only get worse over time, never better. At best Russia may find ways to stabilize some parts of its economy at a less optimal state (either poorer quality, more costly, less of it, etc.). Civil society in Russia is not going to indefinitely accept an ever degrading quality of life in exchange for some invented reasons. Ukraine's civil society, on the other hand, has far more incentive to struggle through this because the alternatives are all worse. This doesn't mean the Russian populace will "blink" first, just that the objective reasons for each to call it quits are not equal to each other. Soooo... if Russia wants to try and play a defensive game with Ukraine, which so far it has shown zero intention of doing, I don't think it will come out better than it is right now. Losing 100s of millions of Dollars of ships, aircraft, and money making infrastructure isn't sustainable. Steve
×
×
  • Create New...