SHORAD Stryker getting deployed to Europe

[Kinophile]

https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/land/army-sends-new-helicopter-attacking-stryker-to-europe-counter-russia-2020-bLYZGF2eMU2mc07tYvQOMQ/?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=2fbd684f64-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_05_06&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-2fbd684f64-81835773

Some daft terminology (infantry need fortified armored support.... So - dug in MBTs? ) but Informative as an overview. 

Edited May 7, 2018 by kinophile

[MikeyD]

That's a weird little website. It includes an article entitled "Why Israel wins every war it fights". They seem to have forgotten 2006.

[Ghost of Charlemagne]

19 hours ago, MikeyD said:

That's a weird little website. It includes an article entitled "Why Israel wins every war it fights". They seem to have forgotten 2006.

IMHO, the 2006 War ended as a stalemate, not a defeat.
Israel could've crushed Hezbollah, but they didn't want to pay the price it would've cost in blood.

[Kinophile]

9 hours ago, AtheistDane said:

IMHO, the 2006 War ended as a stalemate, not a defeat.
Israel could've crushed Hezbollah, but they didn't want to pay the price it would've cost in blood.

Which counts as a win for Hezbollah, no? Their stated objective was to simply exist after the war, as a coherent organisation. Israel's objective was to defeat them, militarily at least. Who achieved their aims?

Whatever reasons the Israeli military might dress up their non-achievement with, in the end Hezbollah is still there, stronger than ever, despite the 2006 offense, which purpose was to degrade and defeat Hezbollah. Ergo, Hezbollah achieved their aim (keep existing) and Israel did not. Which is way more than a draw.

Similarly, I've heard/read many commentators in US media describe the 2nd US War in Iraq as a "failure". Yet, to me, the objective of that war, post-invasion, was to keep a friendly, popularly elected (in reasonably free and fair elections, pretty damn rare for that region) governmental system in existence, functional and strengthening. Despite Al Queda, the civil war,  the ISIS defeats, that political system is still very much there, and now with an arguably far better and more experienced army. AQI is gone. ISIS is hanging on by fingernails and the civil war has stopped. I'd rate that as the US achieving its aims and its opponents not doing so. Ergo, a win.

Steve @Battlefront.com has argued that Debatlsev' was actually a win for Ukraine - its objective, to him, was to keep its front line forces together, operating coherently. The army (well the LOCAL commanders) managed to extricate themselves out. A full kettling and surrender would undoubtedly have been catastrophic for UKR morale and political capital, something naturally desired by Putin (we assume). He got second prize ( a heavy local military defeat) but not first prize - a heavy strategic and political defeat. I can see Steves point, but I still call a retreat a "retreat", and a loss of a territory, badly need men and material still a loss of same.

So while UKR fox did escape the bear claws with the bear only getting to bite off the tail -the fox is still tail-less and bleeding. To me, Debaltsev is a tactical win (for RUS) but a strategic draw. Yet, to go back to Israel/Hezbollah, seeing as Russia/Putin's aim was to destabilize and erode the UKR state further, and did not achieve that, then UKR did win..sorta...kinda...

Edited May 10, 2018 by kinophile

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Interesting & considered perspective @kinophile, can't say I disagree except perhaps with your definition of the objectives of some of these 'scuffles'.