Splinty

This is sort of my point though. Plenty of countries have some degree of interest in a wide variety of drones and UGVs yet it is largely in supplemental roles rather than say replacing current vehicles / concepts in service. No one wants to take a potential risk on something that could very well end as a dead end or something that becomes ruinously expensive/ does not work as intended. (Not suggesting that is a likely outcome, but its something that clearly has to be potentially thought about and its something taxpayers are going to inquire about) 

A lot of countries already have pretty tight spending budgets which means they are less likely to want to splurge into what could be perceived as a risk. UK for instance is still very much struggling with halting the decline of its current armed forces due to constraining budgets. I am sure people are pushing for greater looks into the implications of increased drone warfare, heck I am certain that we will see a growing proliferation of drones on the squad level across NATO in the next few years.

Radical adjustments to established doctrine that see drones replacing vehicles though? That's going to take time, money, political will and some practise to actually get from an idea to reality. Assuming everything works as it should. Maybe data will eventually suggest some clear outcomes that countries will be interested in following, but right now the vibe I get is people / countries are watching intently and seeing what the outcome will be in Ukraine before even setting up anything experimental. 

Viko, I think you are mistaking things.  This person was blaming murder victims for their own murder.  That's not an 'opinion' it's just ridiculous propaganda.  Maybe he thinks life would be just great under Putin -- he can choose that any time he wants.  He can go to Poland then Belarus then RU or the occupied territories.  Of course, he would immediately be thrown into the front line of Putin's war of aggression and he'd probably be dead pretty quickly.  Which he would deserve.
Anyone who showed up on this site and said "at some point UKR will probably be facing a stalemate where further war is just not worth it".  That would be an actual opinion a person could back up. Saying that UKR should have or should now capitulate because it's Ukraine's fault for all the ongoing murders is sick and twisted and only shills and RU nationalists could possibly believe such nonsense.  It's basically like saying the jews were responsible for the holocaust because they didn't leave europe in time.  
I think that there's a really good chance UKR never gets its land back and will someday have to negotiate a treaty giving Putin lots of land.  And guess what, I won't be banned for that.  Or mocked or abused.  It's really hard to see how UKR gets its territory back without some level of RU collapse or military mutiny.   But I remain hopeful while also seeing just how improbable a complete UKR victory looks right now.  
 

I think this is also Putin "cleaning house" after the election of any hint of disloyalty.

I am still filing the Kharkiv offensive under the label "try something, anything" and this sounded good to Putin.  RU losing a LOT of men to drive a short distance across the border.  But how much of UKR forces did they actually displace to do it?  We aren't seeing some big push somewhere else by RU, at least yet. Seems RU had to mass quite a bit of their own from other areas to put this force together.  So, overall, it is starting to look like another grinding slaughter that just hopes to wear down UKR via human sacrifice of one's own populace.

Ukrainian morale and recruitment are bad because no one wants to sign up for a war they suspect their side might be losing. The Ukrainians feel that way in large part because the MAGAT faction in the U.S. managed to screw up the aid flow for months. What is needed now is strong enough statement of western support to convince the Ukrainians we are not just stringing them along. And in return the Ukrainians need to mobilize several hundred thousand people. 
The fastest way convince the Ukrainians we mean it is to put people on the ground in the support roles that takes a decades training to be good at. Contract/NATO aircraft maintainers are the most obvious case but there are a lot of similar technical jobs that the crash six week course just doesn't work for. If we really want to make a splash we need to go from strongly discouraging former F-16 pilots from volunteering for Ukraine, to strongly encouraging it.
Everybody assumed that the the Russians would be the tiniest bit rational about throwing good money and lives after bad. We were wrong, we all need to take a deep breath and stay in the fight.

One point missed on the Trump thing:  he has borrowed money from RU oligarchs.  We know this because his son admitted it on video ~10 years ago or so.  He was mocking the US banks the wouldn't loan to the serial defaulter anymore and said (paraphrase) 'we just borrow from RU instead'.  Also RU oligarchs had bought some of his properties at oddly non-market prices, leading to some wondering about money laundering.  So when we talk about what Trump would do we need to recognize the very high probability that he is on some level a leveraged RU asset.  And his behavior toward Putin/RU has certainly been like that over the years.  
Plus Zelensky refused his extortion racket which led to Trump's first impeachment (he was completely guilty, by the way).
So pretending he'd be doing anything statesmanlike or diplomatic is absurd.  He would serve Putin and abandon Ukraine.  

Ok, let’s think about this for a minute.  Anyone who has played CM knows that a tank needs to do three things to be effective - move, target and shoot.  These giant sheds basically erode all three of those.  They can still move but I am pretty sure with some serious impacts as drivers situational awareness is worse and the fact they have a giant metal box on their tank is going to impact mobility.  Targeting must be a joke.  They cannot swing the gun sights and can only see a narrow window out the front. Situation awareness in that garden shed must be the worst. They are likely blasting nearly blind.  And finally shooting.  What sort of gunnery are they accomplishing with a giant box over top them?  They cannot move the turret more than a few degrees to the front, so they have basically become a mobile field gun….in a big metal box.
What these sorts of developments tell us is that the RA is more afraid of drones than they are of anything else, to the point that they are willing to drastically reduce the effectiveness of armor.  The fact they have to put garden sheds on their tanks is already a tactical victory.  It demonstrates just how far things have gone. They do not “work” beyond keeping whatever these vehicles have become alive for a few more minutes and raising the number of FPVs it takes to kill them. 

A frozen front line without a ceasefire is not a win for Ukraine or the West. A situation that presumably allows Russia to missile strike and drone attack into Ukraine's cities is one that will result in Ukraine's slow bleed out thru civilian morale collapse. I assume that a situation without ceasefire being agreed means ukraine is unable to threaten Russia with enough retaliation to bring Russia away from contently lobbing missiles. Mind you pre-2022 ceasefire and negotiations were in much different contexts than today. We have no idea what Russia's breaking point to begin negotiations to formalize a freeze is and not a form of surrender or Western loss.
It is therefore essential to define win in terms of a maximal, seeking quick as possible goal, in order to best pressure Russia towards peace, to best prep western governments to aspire and support Ukraine with maximum aid and long term awareness of potential Russian renewal. (Things like arguing over ammo procurement should have never become a issue to the result now where the West looks weak as hell as Russia makes gains and can argue it can make strategic gains eventually, if our goal is to stop the war, anything that allows Russia to convince itself it can win is a failure)(lack of urgency is a failure)
The slow drip of aid, the reactive position of the West to Russia, is a failure. At every step, Russia has escalated, has increased its capabilities, has continued to bet that it can exhaust the West. Instead of providing offramps, Russia sees it as Western weakness to take advantage of.
The fear of Russian collapse, which characterized many foreign policy doves including Jake Sullivan in the Biden administration has resulted in the measures Russia has taken advantage of. It's necessary to no longer concern with Russian collapse (which I don't think has ever been a possibility in hindsight, if you forgot, at every step of escalation Russia has sought to warn of Russian collapse (I include nuclear weapons use as a collapse scenario, as only a hard pressed Russia would want to open Pandora's box) and right now it looks like Russia was stalling (obviously). If anything we need, the West needs to concern itself with Ukrainian collapse and to operate accordingly to prevent it. Accordingly, we must signal to Russia that it's maximal goal is impossible. Certainly the present situation indicates Russia still looks for its maximal goal. Holding up aid for months is certainly not helping the mindset of a dictator who started the full scale invasion in the delusion it would succeed quickly and painlessly.
What does disregarding Russia's potential collapse mean in reality? Well for one thing, the restrictions on Western weapons use in Russia, Germany acting oh so scared of hurting Russian land with a missile as cluster munitions land in Odesa and France being exceedingly selfish procuring ammo are just some behaviors that Putin may be able to take solace in.

Freedom ain’t free.  Someone has to stop Russia from doing what it is doing which is definitely not “perfectly fine”.  In reality the kid did not run away, his family did when he was 16.  Now that he is 18 and of age; he is “staying away”.  I think every citizen has a duty to protect their nation in times of crisis.  A duty to protect each other when threatened.  If they cannot or will not do that then they really are no longer a nation.  This is one thing I think we have lost, and it will come back and bite us.  There is a solemn duty in being a citizen, and even a greater one in a free nation.  It is one that takes sacrifice for the greater good.  Now this kid could be from a pacifist ideology or religion, ok there are a lot of ways to fulfill this duty to serve.
What I disagree with is that is all fine for a young man like this to selfishly protect himself while his own people are suffering.  Running away to “embrace life” when Ukrainian children are dying back in Ukraine does not wash with me.  Personally I have been in two wars that really had not much to do with Canada.  We were really doing it for some greater global good (really did not turn out well in the end) but we all believed in it and honoured kids maybe a year older than this one who died in crappy places no one will remember in 50 years. The idea that one could “sit out” an atrocity like this invasion of Ukraine and still claim citizenship or ethnicity does not sit well with me at all.  It is shirking duty and letting others pay the price.   As we have discussed this kid does not even have to fight.  He can be in a support trade or work in industry or even humanitarian.  But his people and his country need him right now which is more important than how he gets to spend his twenties.  It is more important than him as an individual.  
Mark my words on this, we have more of this coming.  The future is likely going to demand more sacrifice for the greater good not less.  We will have to stand or kneel in the end.  And right now to my eyes, that young man is kneeling.

If my recollection is correct, didn't the guillotine have a plank kind of table to lie on?
yeah I think this is the "negotiating" table.

I read the doc and RUSI actually hits some pretty salient points.  The mainstream thinking is that unmanned systems as we are talking about here are an addition to conventional warfare.  An emerging capability to be added to our extant capability portfolios and expenditures. Unmanned systems are an undeniably part of the future warfare military algorithms and focus should be on how to combine them best within our current approaches to create advantages.
I think this does not go far enough.  I believe that unmanned autonomous systems will emerge as the core pillar of a future military operational system.  We will then build the remaining systems, some legacy others also new, around these new unmanned capabilities.  We will fund and equip the unmanned forces first, along with C4ISR and PGM strike.  We will then need to figure out from the money left what to resources with respect to heavier conventional manned systems.  This takes the entire approach to force development and generation and flips it. More plainly, tanks will survive if they can demonstrate that they can shape, support and/or exploit the main unmanned battle…not the other way around as RUSI and others suggest.
This era we are in reminds me of the introduction of machine guns. Militaries of the day immediately brigaded them like cannons and relegated them to a support-to-infantry role.  The reality is that within a few short years the role of infantry was to protect the machine guns while they exerted firepower effect, and then the infantry would exploit that effect by taking and holding ground…so they could move up the machine guns.

When the unified right wing National Corps slate only manages to get something like 2.5% of the total vote in Ukraine while rightest parties dominate Russia then this discussion gets very silly. 

On victory and defeat - because it is the basis of so much “proof” on the opposing sides of this thing.  In warfare victory and defeat are very slippery concepts.  One can win a war by all metrics and wind up losing in the long run (see European Allies after WW1 and 2).  The vice versa is also possible (see Japan).  So whenever someone jumps in with the “Ukraine is obviously losing, Russia is winning” or vice versa, without clearly defining what that means, I get suspicious.
For now the best way to try and determine what victory/defeat means in this war, one needs to come to a common understanding of what the initial political and strategic goals of this war for each side were and were not.
When I am looking at the “winning/losing” equation I am using the following objectives.
For Ukraine:
- the survival of the state as independent and sovereign.
- the creation of a narrative of effective resolve and resistance that draws in international support.
- shape and set the conditions for enduring security integrity at wars end (this one is key to effective reconstruction and recovery).
For Russia:
- the complete political absorption control of Ukraine as a vassal state or sub-state.
- a clear demonstration of Russian power within its Near Abroad designed to push back on Western encroachment and reinforce the notion that other states within this region need to “stay in line”.  This one plays to both external and internal audiences.
- any and all erosion of NATO unity and resolve, as well as a draw back of US influence in the region.
For the West (we often forget we have a win/lose calculus here as well):
- A clear demonstration of the western rules based international order.  Russia must be forced to get back in line and face punitive measures for an illegal invasion that violates the rules we constructed.  To this end we support Ukraines objectives; however, we do not need all of them in full to achieve ours. We do need a clear demonstration of western unity and resolve as a foundational underpinning for that western rules based order.
- Any opportunities to expand western influence and control - see Sweden and Finland.
- the reduction of Russia as a security threat to Europe and globally.
- Avoid a catastrophic collapse of Russia at all costs as it would make the overall regional situation, and possibly global one much worse.
You will note that for me none of these are tied directly to lines on the ground.  I do not believe that where this war ends drive those strategic objectives (within reason of course - if Russia takes Kyiv the viability of Ukrainian state is greatly diminished).  
By my metrics, Russia has already pretty much “lost” this thing.  They can hold onto to what they have now but none of their strategic objectives are accomplished.  They end the war in worse position than when they started it.  Their only Hail Mary is that western support and attention dries up over time and they can exploit that to try and pull this one out of the dumpster.  The odds of full Russian control over Ukraine by this point are pretty damn low.  Much worse than at wars beginning.
Ukraine has two out of three, that last one of setting conditions for enduring security has not been accomplished. Ukraines long game is to enter into western economic and security mechanisms.  They definitely have earned that but we have the thorny issue of Russia still able to make trouble and project that into Ukraine.  We can live with a level of this a la South Korea, but I suspect we will need this thing to hold more water to work.
The West is doing well but we are not there yet, and things could still go bad quickly.  We definitely have shored up influence, control and unity. And we have managed to reduce Russian threats pretty significantly as the Russian military has been shattered. What we do not have are the conditions for long term stabilization. Russia is neither a zero-threat nor stable in the long term.
So to summarize…on victory/defeat so far:
Russia - nope.
Ukraine - OK, but not there yet.
West - meh, so long as we don’t blow the whole thing up.
I hope this is useful for the next time someone rolls through here with “well obviously Russia is winning” due to some headline about a tactical twitch somewhere.  They likely are not using the same metrics I do and in many cases have ulterior motives for painting this war in a certain light.

Contains some profanity, but absolutely hilarious.
 

First Oscar in Ukrainian history. 
 

Hi,
As a Swede I thought today would be a good day to stop lurking for a bit and drop a comment. Been playing cm for 20 years and following this forum for a long time.
Thank you all for contributing to this thread, checking it daily. Always a good source for news and discussion, so much knowledge and experience gathered is hard to get elsewhere. 
I always was all for our countrys neutral stance combined with a strong Defense but last decade has of course swayed us all in Sweden a bit. I have my background in the army, cv90. Seeing us finally start to retake our capabilities regarding defense is good.
Anyways thanks for having us in the club I guess (why am I thinking about brothers Marx)?
Carl 

The M2A2 version of the Bradley was uparmored to resist 30mm autocannons in the mid eighties.

Just saw them.  Thanks!
I was kidding around referring to the Battle of Antonov Airport. 😁

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. 

The Russians prepared far better than we thought, that's for sure. But they can't and they won't win. Denmark gave a good example by announcing all Danish artillery will be send to Ukraine. I hope other countries will following that grand gesture. Ukraine MUST prevail and it will. The Russians didn't learn much from their mistakes, don't believe their propaganda. They want us to believe that they are winning. They are not. They are bleeding. Badly.
The West is awake and will crush Putin and his thugs. It will take years, but we'll make them pay.  Patience and perseverance! If it takes another world war, so be it.

The point of this war from our perspective should be not simply defeating the russians in Ukraine but to bleed them dry and make it an example of why not to get in to this kinda position in the first place.
Russians will not riot on the streets or start a civil war, the majority of the population is powerless even if they want to do something. But the russian system is not effective and don't have infinite resources. They refurbishing old vehicles but after they run dry then they not gonna be able to supply as much as the fighting force need for assaults. Ukraine should wage a defensive war and cause as much damage as possible. That's their only chance.
If Ukraine would throw the towel now the russians would be able to reorganize and than start again with a better suited army for job. This why russian propaganda machine is so keen on peace deals. They want to win time, these type of losses are not sustainable unless you're in war for your existence. Peoples of russia are don't want to die for Ukraine, this is why there is no mass mobilization but volunteers whom are usually have some major issues. Average peoples with no issue would not want to go to Ukraine just to end up with torn leg so they have to throw a grenade in to their vest.
 
So the real breaking point will came when the volunteers will dry up and the russian elite will do another round of mobilization. Probably after the election. Than that force must be bleed out. If the russians will see that they have two chances, dying in Ukraine or using the weapons to change the system than things will change.
Younger generation doesn't matter. They will not change the system that is not meant for them to change. They will be suppressed just like their parents with different methods. Fear is the key for the russian society, its fear that make them so easily controllable so i guess this is what needed to have change in their system.
What the west need to do is not to be gullible to russian psyops. We need to give means to ukraine to destroy russian forces. We need to be united on our goal to defeat russia and make a change in their system. Otherwise thing will look pretty grim in this decade and the next.

I am hearing that the Russians lost something on the order of 1100 vehicles of various types attacking Avdiivka. If correct, Russia is fighting a war of attrition...against itself.

If I were Taiwan, I would start building 4 factories for these naval drones this week. They are shockingly effective.

RU are currently incapable of maneuver warfare. Due to the apparent serious vulnerabilities of their tanks and planes, and serious shortcomings of their artillery and AA their current doctrine is late-World War I infantry-based attacks (+ UMPKs and helicopter ATGMs). They are considering rectifying it eventually, but it would need a large rearmament program, something they cannot afford at the moment (they have money left for around 1 year of fighting).