chris talpas

So a complete withdrawal to pre-2014 lines and a lasting peace agreement that allows Ukraine to enter NATO.  You are on and I earnestly hope I lose this bet.

Excellent Heart of Darkness reference, I remember reading that Joseph Conrad novel back when I was a school kid. 🙂
Anyway on to the subject. I do find it interesting how the usual pro-Russian suspects like that lowlife David Sacks as well as the convicted sex offender Scott Ritter( I hope you read this David and Scott, I know this topic gets around to some interesting places 😎), are gloating about Avdiivka.
Yet an actual Russian source who is much more familiar and connected to the war, literally killed himself over this great Russian victory.
 

See my other post.  So Ukraine has lost?  We have definitely been around that tree a few times.  Is it right?  Well ok by what metrics has Ukraine lost?  You contradict your own position by stating that we have doomed Ukraine by not giving them enough weapons.  Ok, so if they had enough weapons they could win this war?  So winning the war is possible, except for the part where support to Ukraine has been hijacked to create a self-fulfilling prophesy - “you are going to lose this war, while I ensure you don’t get the support you need to win it.”
As to the war itself:
- Russia has failed to achieve any of its political or strategic objectives, with the lone exception of that land bridge, but until there is a ceasefire, I am not willing to call that one.
- The Russian military is a broken shell of its former self.  The damage done to its Tier 1 military is going to take a decade to rebuild under normal conditions, let alone long term sanctions.  I read a source that notes the Black Sea Fleet is not only denied but down 20%.
- Russian foreign influence has completely backfired - see Finland and Sweden in NATO.  NATO funding will be secure for a decade at least…and frankly we were half way to letting it die before this.
- Ukraine remains and independent sovereign nation.  It has distance to go but it will very likely be western facing for the next century.
- The Ukrainian military is about as battle hardened as it gets.  To the point they could make bank training us.
- Russia chances for serious operational gains remain low.  For all the reasons laid out in the last couple thousand pages.
- Russian internal stability remains highly suspect.  Hell they almost had an accidental coup last year.
You are correct, China is dining out on this and will continue to a point.  The war could end right now, Korean Peninsula style and Ukraine will have won this thing.  Of course Ukraine needs more support, as much as they can get.  I highly suggest you use your democratic rights this year to vote for the party and candidates that are trying to sustain that support, not shut it down.
Is it hard.  Damn straight.  Is Ukraine suffering, absolutely. Are they having force generation problems, very likely.  So what?  What is your answer?  Sue for peace?  Surrender?  Seriously, how on earth did the children and grandchildren of the generation that went through the Depression and WW2 come to this?  “Aw it’s too hard so we should just look away.  Stick to the easy ones so we can score political points.”  This was is not about politics are power.  It is about right and wrong.  What I find so shocking is how the USA, leader and symbol of “right”, is floundering now that history is watching.  How sentiments like yours can be so widespread.  Frankly, if this is the trajectory of your nation, China will be running the planet by 2050.
You want to Make America Great Again - start here and support a nation of people who just want to be free and democratic.  A nation that has been invaded by a brutal authoritarian regime.  Stop hand-wringing and doom saying “Ukraine has no avenues to win this war”…and do something about it!

Ok, enough banter.  Time for serious talk. You have probably noticed that you are not that popular here?  Now I am sure you are telling yourself is is because you are “too real” and enjoy flying by to shake up the “liberals and Europeans”.  But that isn’t why people don’t like you.  No, they don’t like you because you really don’t add anything to the discussion.
You see, people here do a lot of things.  Some are really good at collecting information very quickly.  Others ask really good questions and some of us try and make sense out of this whole crazy thing because we have spent decades in the war business and can contribute that experience - and I do not just mean military vets, I mean dedicated wargamers who are all historians, theorists and philosophers to some extent.
So what this thread is trying to do is understand better.  Before when I poked you to find examples of me “being wrong” about a prediction, well it was a trick question.  I rarely ever make firm predictions because frankly things are simply too dynamic.  I see trends, big ones.  Trends that are becoming unavoidably large and looming.  These trends point to the fact that we are very likely within an RMA right now.  It started back in the early 90s and has been progressing for 30 years.  The effects that information technology, miniaturization and energy density - along with dozens of others, all have on warfare is emerging with increasing speed and impact.  So when I say “unmanned systems are not a temporary thing” well you can take it or leave it but that judgement is based on about 35 years of observations on the changes within military affairs.
Your problem is that you do not come with new information.  You do not come with good questions.  You don’t even come with good analysis and arguments to back things up.  You come with opinion and positions.  And the come on this thread like an evangelist - this is not discourse, it is preaching.  You are trying to make a lab into a chapel and it just makes people angry.
But we should be about forgiveness.  So here is a fun thing we can try: what don’t you know?  What questions do you have about this war that you do not understand?  Maybe we can start there and help you understand better.  Because right now it really looks like a lot of very uninformed “well let me tell you college boy” BS.  You want to make an argument that unmanned systems are a flash in the pan? Why not go out and find some actual analysis that supports that.  We have got hundreds of pages of social media videos, professional analysis links and expertise that disagrees with you.  But do some proof of work and come back with some solid analysis and assessment and we can discuss.
If not, well there are a lot of other forums on the internet where everyone will agree with you, or really lose their minds if that is your kink.
Finally as to the point at hand…the issue is not “counter-drone gear”.  Of course counter-systems will be introduced, and the  counter-counter systems as we will see primacy shift back and forth.  The issue is that this competition will profoundly change how we wage war, it already has.  Data superiority, AI superiority, Silencing, deception, redesign of land units and formations for the first time since WW2…these are all on the table.  We cannot assume dominance based on where we were..we will need to earn that dominance and frankly accept that we won’t always have it.  This will mean hard fights and harsh calculus.  The lazy days of air supremacy are likely over as a minimum. Bilindc noted that one would need to “Deny ISR”, he is right, and I have no idea how to do that on the modern battlefield.  And trust me, if I don’t, you don’t either.  So we can discuss how that could happen or you can keep hand waving and going “aw shucks…airplanes”.  Or you can keep getting tossed onto everyone’s ignore list until Steve comes along and chases you away again.

Artillery. And its more powerful and dangerous than ever.
First Use < Modern
But hey, expert opinions, I bow to them.

You make it sound like the border is a binary issue, which just plays into extremist talking points:
"Biden wants millions of brown trans rapists to cross the border because he is an evil person who hates white America - trump would shut it all down" 
Vs
"The fashists want to shoot Mexicans on sight so the solution is to not come up with any solution to the border because if bad people want something we should do the opposite "
Not helpful.

Those UKR jet drones are UK supplied (if you weren't already aware). I assume each one carries a micro-clone of Boris Johnson. They don't do anything, but fun to watch them cackling across the sky, like floppy haired gremlins. 
https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/ukraine_utilizes_british_qinetiq_banshee_jet_80_uavs_as_long_range_kamikaze_drones-9571.html

 

What lol? Each of these is worth over 100k? What a complete ripoff. Taxpayers are getting ****ed so hard. 

Sounds good. 🇨🇦

In your head yes. But this idea will leave your head as soon as RU soldier hits you in the head with buttstock on your way to the torture or execution chamber. 

It's not slumbering.
It's swallowing fistsfull of pentobarbital, and washing them down with vodka.

Gah, imagine being Taiwan or South Korea or Japan or Vietnam and watching this absolute ****show. Or Europe. How the hell can any state that relies on American military deterrent be pleased that the Arsenal of Democracy is apparently slumbering?
Shameful. We have thousands of Bradleys piled in storage and we have sent according to wiki, about 200? It was acceptable to say at the beginning, "Ukraine needs to get the logistical pipeline set up" before shipping more, what the hell is the excuse now? This is bull****, expecting Ukraine to conduct offensives with what is virtually hand me downs and a sprinkling of equipment. (Sure, sure artillery shells)(humbug)
How is Taiwan supposed to be feeling good about facing the world's manufacturing giant and then comparing to this? This was supposed to be America's time to shine, to illustrate that time is indeed on our side, instead Xi and Putin are gambling time is on their side and our inability is costing the lives of Ukrainians.

Just a reminder that Perun did a decent video on space weapons last year.
 

Like most Russian propaganda, it's probably not really meant to be believed or disbelieved.  It's meant to cause arguments and distrust,  widen divisions and increase mutual suspicion between those who chose to believe it and those who chose not to. Whether Putin would actually prefer Biden or not is a completely unrelated Issue. 
It's meant to generate heat,  not shed light.

Yes, there's a fundamental category error here in the utter failure to distinguish Ukrainians, who are overwhelmingly fighting for their nation and elected government, from Iraqis or Afghans who overwhelmingly defer to their local tribal or religious leaders, who in turn decide which flag to salute, or not.

Elon isn't getting any saner...

What will have changed is that trump will have learned that he can act with impunity and no one will stop him.  Jeebus F-in' Kristo, he actually led a coup against the elected gov't and nothing has been done about it as people quibble and wet their pants over legalisms that trump shredded already.  It's insane. 
The supreme court has no executive authority, how would they make trump comply with anything?  Congress, if there's enough snakes to not impeach (probably will be), then what are they gonna do?  Call out the army on the white house? -- the army doesn't answer to congress.
Seriously, if 2nd term trump in unimpeachable, then he can do anything he wants that is within his power.  And within his power he has the military, homeland security, the justice dept, and many other agencies that answer directly to him.  Our country is very much ruled by norms as much as laws and Trump will know neither apply to him.
Trump is actively, both in legal filings and in speeches, making the case that the president can do anything he wants, commit any crime, and without that power then it destroys the presidency.  It's bat**** but that is what he is currently arguing.  An appeals court just shot that ludicrous position down, thoroughly and sternly, but it's headed for the supreme court, who hopefully will simply refuse to hear it, letting the appeals court ruling stand.  Seriously, why does any think that someone who holds the position that they are above the law worry about the law?
Just like why do his supporters think it's impossible that he sexually assaulted a woman even though he was recorded bragging about grabbing women by the p--y and how because he's a tv star no one could do anything about it.  He literally bragged about sexually assualting women, yet someone his cult can't believe he'd actually assault a woman.  
Jesus, just take the f--er at his word and you can see how dangerous he is.

it wasn't even the dumbest thing he said.
The best comment of all though was from Nikki's husband
 

I'm trying to avoid talking about "that guy", but some of these twitter memes related to the interview are hilarious.
For the record I did not watch it, I don't want to spoil the Super Bowl weekend with that trash.
 

That is a very good analogy.  McClellan was a brilliant force generation general.  He built a modern army out of a tiny start up.  That was an enormous task with many critical systems essentially beginning from nothing - logistics, C4ISR, training and doctrine.  He was in fact exactly what the Union needed at the beginning of the war.  But when it came time to fight, he was sub par and dangerous.  The political level had to replace him and find the right general for the right time: Grant.
Grant would have been a disaster in the first half of the war.  He would have fought like Lee and likely broken the north.  Lee was arguably the wrong general for the South too.  Aggressive to a fault. Slavish adherence to the offensive.  He took an incredibly motivated military and basically broke it without achieving victory.  Now a strong argument can be made that he knew he was up against the clock and was essentially trying to destroy the Union before they inevitably grew too strong but there are holes in this.  However, the Confederacy never solved for stuff like logistics or C4ISR over the same period - that is a major strategic shortfall.
Regardless, generals are very often terrible in a moment other than their own.  Most of the wartime generals of WW2 would have been horrible in small dirty wars.  Good generals in low intensity or peacetime often fail in wartime.  The trick is to put the right general in the chair at the right time. I do not know what the dynamic is with the UA but clearly the politically level has decided they need someone else for what comes next…we will have to see if they are right.

I think there is more than enough evidence that Russian officers do learn. I mean, just read @Haiduk s latest posts. Since we all like our historical comparisons, this is like WW1. In the first half year or so casualties were enormous because neither side knew how to deal with the new battlefield realities. Both sides continued to feed bodies into the meet grinders with frontal assaults afterwards. That doesn't mean they didn't learn but that it took time to learn the lessons and to find solutions - and how to deal with what lessons the other side learned.
Sure, Russian officers don't seem to be the most... intellectually flexible type but evidently they do learn. Question is, do they lean fast enough to complete with Ukraine (who apparently have difficulties of there own) As @The_Capt keeps telling us this is about which side leans faster, institutionalizes it and manages to convert those lessons into advantages on the battlefield.

What message politically does that send the US? If you won't supply Ukraine to defend your own national interests, we'll reward you by paying you billions of dollars and do it for you?
Defending Ukraine is in Europe's interests too of course, which is why they are spending money on it.  But for things like artillery shells it is better to invest the money in their own production capacity,  not throwing it at the US as a temporary solution and ignoring the long term one. 
Particularly true if the US is going to become an unreliable ally that is going to abandon allies because of internal ideological politics.

One more caveat: 
A big difference in American politics now from even 7 years ago is that there is a lot of actual intimidation going on on the Republican side. GOP pols get swatted (i.e. have bogus hostage/shooting calls made to police with their address), their kids get targeted online, they deal with waves of threatening emails, calls and texts if they publicly break with Trump. Nikki Haley was swatted in December at her home and just applied for Secret Service protection because of the unrelenting and violent comms she gets. When 20 GOP Senators who would have killed for this border bill in 2015 run cowering from it, it's not because they suddenly had a change of heart. They were scared off it for both political and personal reasons. 
One of America's parties has entered a very dark phase and it's not going to get better unless they lose and keep losing.