Splinty

I don't think it's just the weather that's impairing those folks. 

Speaking as a Bradley infantry guy. I'll have to disagree with the ground war could have been won with APCs part. I was with 1st Armored at Medina Ridge, and that was a hell of a fight. The Air War cleared the way for us, But it was the Ground War that finished the Iraqi military.
 

And no one take this as me thinking it is good news.  I would have been very happy to see mechanized forces doing what we expect them to.  The bad news is that if they had, and if air power still worked along with it, Kyiv would probably look like Gaza as the RA would have rolled over them.
But in the face of significant shifts of some pretty fundamental stuff like surprise and mass we are kinda off the map.  Now I expect some renormalization as counter systems kick in but the speed at which miniaturization, computing power/machine learning and information technologies are advancing I am concerned that we could be playing catch up for some time.  It is in disruptive times like this that warfare gets pretty rocky.  

Someone rang?  Oh good a tank argument.  The problem with tanks as we are observing in Ukraine is 1) not all about tanks - get over to yourselves tank lovers.  The issue is much larger than a single platform regardless how much you might love the thing.  Mechanized mass is currently in the wind.  2) It isn’t that tanks are dying.  It is that tanks are dying before they can deliver the effects we want the tank to do. They cannot mass. They cannot break in, through or out.  We are seeing sniping and indirect fires (seriously wtf?) as their primary roles on the ground right now.  And 3) those who come out defending the tank really do not fully understand just how fundamental the shifts are appearing.  Mass as we knew it is failing.  Force ratios are out the window.  Denial appears to have battlefield primacy.  The tank, along with a lot of other things are being dislocated from their ability to deliver results.
Now could a massive NATO mech force still roll over a smaller less capable force?  Sure.  But the cost is likely going to go up significantly.  To the point operational and strategic calculus will need to change.  If we run into a force empowered by a supporting great power’s C4ISR and the levels of precision and autonomous systems we are only seeing hints of on the modern battlefield, we are going to be in serious trouble.  We do not have effective counters.  The other thing the tank lusters also tend to gloss over is that the current wars we are seeing are last-Gen technology.  The more modern stuff has not even appeared on the battlefield.  The trend for mechanized mass is not good overall.
Yes, people have been predicting the end of the tank since the 60’s….what if they were right?  We have never seen modern armor tested in an environment like Ukraine.  We talked and “exercised” a lot of threat reality away back in the 90s and leapt headlong into confirmation bias as we crushed Iraq (freakin Iraq?!).  I am strongly suspecting that the tank was in trouble back in the 80s.  As of 2023, the entire mechanized edifice is in trouble.  
Lastly, narrowing this back down to tanks.  The other reality that is getting sidestepped (conveniently) is that a tank is part of a much larger system extending back to the factory.  We can wrap tanks in APS and bubble wrap but the fuel trucks, ammo resupply, maintenance and spare parts are strung out on highly visible and vulnerable supply chains.  Even if the tank manages to pull off what it is supposed to deliver, we likely cannot sustain it.
First video I saw out of this Israeli conflict was a tank getting nailed by a UAS…the idea has gone viral.  Normally I really would not care if the tank, or IFV or whatever was going obsolete but given that we are likely going to looking at billions in investment in the old fleets to keep them “competitive” I think it is a damned important conversation to have.  Personally I would double down on C4ISR, UAS/UGV, PGM and light fast highly empowered infantry because it has pretty much been definitively proven that on the current battlefield that is what works on the defence at least.  Solving for offence is likely going to be the challenge of the next decade.
But hey, we will always have CM.

I don't have any direct experience to contribute (I was about a week old when that war ended, and despite studying military history my entire life, I have never actually fought in a war (I did consider going to Ukraine, but I chickened out (I just didn't feel prepared to die))), so I can't replace a response from Splinty himself. But while airpower has been absolutely invaluable in every war from WW2 on, no war has ever been won by airpower alone. No matter how much the Iraqi military was degraded by air attacks, eventually a ground element was going to have to go in to finish them off. And that's what happened. The war ended after ground troops went in, not before. And as heavy as Iraqi losses were to air attacks, somewhere from half to most of their casualties (unfortunately there aren't exact records for Iraqi losses, so there is a lot of estimating going on) were taken in the four days of the ground offensive, with the other half to minority of their casualties being taken in the six weeks of the air campaign.
So, with the necessity of the ground offensive (hopefully) established, how essential were tanks to the ground offensive? I'm sure Coalition casualties would have been higher without tanks, but it might still be doable if you permit the Coalition to retain IFVs. It's hard to imagine how we could have fought battles like 73 Easting and Medina Ridge without either tanks or IFVs though. As things went, tanks and IFVs accounted for a huge proportion of Iraqi losses. Taking those assets away certainly would have meant harder, more prolonged fighting, with higher Coalition casualties.
Still, someone could easily point out that the Iraqis were hardly a top tier opponent, and the Gulf War was over 30 years ago in any case. So it doesn't prove the value of tanks in warfare in 2023 and beyond. We had TOWs and Dragons in 1991, but no Javelins and nothing like current numbers of drones. And that would be a fair point that I am not prepared to refute. While I am adamant that tanks are still important today, and I believe that it is pretty obvious that tanks were invaluable in the 1991 Gulf War, I will admit that the value of tanks in the Gulf War does not prove that they remain important today.

Speaking as a Bradley infantry guy. I'll have to disagree with the ground war could have been won with APCs part. I was with 1st Armored at Medina Ridge, and that was a hell of a fight. The Air War cleared the way for us, But it was the Ground War that finished the Iraqi military.
 

Full version
 

I'll take your word for it that you're not pro-Russian. But you are clearly getting your information from Russian propaganda. It has been obvious since last April that Russia is going to lose this war. That comes with the caveat that victory conditions are asymmetric. Russian defeat does not automatically mean Ukrainian victory. Russia has already lost this war, and there is absolutely nothing that can change that now. Ukrainian victory has not yet been assured, though it is very likely. In fact the only way that Ukraine could lose at this point is if western support evaporates. So long as western support remains strong, Ukraine cannot lose.
Yes, Ukraine is still struggling with corruption. They are not more corrupt than Russia (they aren't even as corrupt as Russia (even in 2014 Ukraine was still only the 2nd most corrupt country in Europe after Russia)). They are struggling with the same corruption that all former-Soviet/Warsaw Pact and Russia-aligned states struggle with. Notably, all former Soviet/Warsaw Pact states which realigned away from Russia have drastically reduced corruption and increased economic prosperity compared to when they were aligned with/part of the Soviet Union/Russia. We are seeing signs of the same trends in Ukraine. A single decade is far too little time to eliminate all of the corruption that comes with formerly being aligned with Russia, but they are making impressive progress.
There is zero chance of this becoming WW3. Even if war broke out between Russia and NATO (which is basically impossible, considering that Russia has no available forces to attack NATO with (they are all in Ukraine), and in order for NATO to attack Russia all members would need to unanimously agree on something), Russia just isn't a world war-class threat (modern day Russia is not the Soviet Union, and it is not modern day China). It would be a big war, but not a world war (by any reasonable standard).
Stopping the war would overwhelmingly benefit Russia and hurt Ukraine. It would give Russia a chance to rebuild their forces, absorb lessons, and retrain under peacetime conditions. It would undo so much of the progress that has been made towards defeating them. And remember that Russians do not keep to their agreements. Any agreement that is made with Russia will be broken by Russia. Peace now along the current borders will result in Russia invading again in a few years. They will have a better starting position, they will have produced more modern equipment, and they will not underestimate the Ukrainians next time. If we stop the war now then far more people will be killed in the inevitable next war than if we see the current war through. Seeing the current war through will make it possible to more completely defeat the Russian army, allow the Ukrainian army to reestablish itself along more defensible borders, and make it easier to accept Ukraine as a full NATO member, all of which will drastically reduce the threat of future Russian invasions. 
Another reason not to stop the war right now is the importance of deterring future wars started by other would-be invaders. Allowing Russia to keep any part of Ukrainian territory sends the message that land grabs work. Part of the modern rules-based order is that invading your neighbor is no longer a legitimate way of settling territorial disputes (Russia is allowed to claim that Ukraine is a historical part of Russia all they want, but they are not allowed to settle that claim with force). We must send the message that as long as the current world order lasts, land grabs will always fail.

Toyota produces enough Hiluxes and LC70s (and enough of them exist already) that someone would just have to open their checkbook.
However, Europe and US are not going to subsidize Toyota. That’s why pages ago I suggested we literally send all of the luxury pickups in the US that aren’t selling to Ukraine:
Subsidize US industry? Check Subsidize US workers (or NAFTA ones)? Check American trucks towing weapons and looking badass? Check I don’t think you realize how many pickup trucks exists in the US (or Latin America, or SE Asia). I bet even a medium size US city could spare a thousand plus between all the dealerships.

Well just don't do a CM game involving China or it may become way too relevant.  🤪

One of the best movies ever, Death of Stalin.  I could watch Stalin die over & over & over.  And Zhukov shooting Beria -- so incredibly blunt and to the point while the others are all jabbering.  You do have JoJo Rabbit on your list also, I hope? 
I hope Putin soon joins Stalin in the 'died in puddle of his own urine' club

Someone read/watched The Expanse books/tv series.

You should have went with the “drinking” off ramp.  Been awhile since I did Asian history but let me just say I have some reservations about your overall theories here.  First off the Mongol Empire began fracturing in the 14th century, with Mongol-Chinese rule failing completely by late 1300s.  They seem to have had aspirations after this but were kept in check by the Ming dynasty.  Main cause was Chinese internal rebellion (Black Death did not help).  The entire Empire had fractured by 15th century, last Mongolian Emperor dead by 1370.  I can accept “it was complicated” but not really seeing a conative origin story here.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mongol-empire/The-Yuan-dynasty-in-China-1279-1368
This was all well before the rise of imperial Russia in the 17th and 18th centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia
Mulan btw is a legend from as early as the 4th century…so really muddling here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua_Mulan
So I am not entirely sure I buy Russia put Mongolia in a box and kept them there while China yearned for several million acres of Siberian wastelands…on the other side of the freakin Gobi Desert.
Now to your main point - Chinese Lebensraum.  Ok, there have been some pretty intense “border skirmishes” between these two nations.  But has China ever demonstrated any expansion aspirations in that direction?  Great Wall says “nope”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_China
Ming Dynasty had their chance for a few hundred years between 1400-1700 to “go north” but built a big @ss wall instead.
So I guess what my poor North American fixed brain cannot see is a real theory here based on real estate.  Now what does make a lot more sense is one thing China has definitely demonstrated a desire for…energy.  Russia has a lot of it an China wants it on the cheap.  If recent history holds, China does not want to own the land and people that energy comes from (they are already flush with human capital) they just want cheap and easy access.  So Russia weak and vulnerable - to which this war is helping immensely- is advantageous to China in the short to middle term.  In that vein China supporting, but not too much while cheering Russian quagmires in Ukraine begins to make sense.  Russia as a Chinese propane tank to pay for this senseless war makes a lot of sense.  Now if they want to keep some of their population happy by owning more of the Risk board, then this may provide options.
So What?  Why argue if we land on the same square?  The reason I oppose any weird Chinese land expansion theories is that they feed into a Conquest Dragon narrative.  First the Island chains, then Taiwan, then Nebraska!!!!  Wake up Sheeple!  The issue with China is far more complex and Chinas strategic objectives far more nuanced than “Evil Empire Redux”.  That sort of thinking dooms us to a war we do not want.  Are we in for vigorous, even hostile, negotiations, oh ya.  But simplifying the Indo-Pac down to land grabs with Disney sound bites is not the way to go. 

Yes. Go into the mod after you extract it and delete all the Feldmutze and garrison cap mods. 

M882 ARV resqued from battlefield damaged Bradley. Likely this was under fire, because M882 got some fragments at side hull. But crew completed own mission - Bradley soon will be in "hospital" and return to beat Ruissians again. 
In previous days in Stepove area near Avdivka five Bradleys were damaged.
 

True, we did. And we had the BEST NCOs. I'm sure every trooper and officer would agree. The professional NCO corps is not really a thing in the Russian system.
Dave

3000!!!  \  /

My back and knees will testify to that.

My back and knees will testify to that.

Sounds like we need a Combat Mission: Mobile Infantry.  We should test some of this conjecture!   

And “raccoon stealing”…let’s not forget that.  As if raccoons have no agency of their own!  
Emptying our raccoon churches and filling them with ambiguously self-identifying marmots…wake up sheeple!

That's for sure. To quarrel between Ukrainians and Poles is goal No. 1 for the Russians. I am not very afraid of the US stopping support for Ukraine as long as there is support from Poland. After all, who else but the Poles knows that if Ukraine loses, then it’s time to fight on Polish territory.

Is the choice of Forum optimal? Probably not.
Does it really matter enough to keep derailing the discussion? Definitely not.

Quite the visual effect of the shock wave there. Would not have wanted to be anywhere in the neighborhood!
Dave

Let’s not make too long leaps here. (And I know you are just summarizing)  Russia may have reserves.  Or it may well have taken risks along line units as well.  Avdiivka was a tactical offensive, that failed - not D Day.  Russia is learning, there is no arguing that.  The question is: are they learning at a competitive rate compared to the UA?
UA takes ground continuously for months = “well ya but it isn’t fast enough”
RA does a post mortem twitch = “Holy Crap, it is the end of days!”