Splinty

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).

he was prepared, this was always just a moment for Putin to say whatever he wanted.  Tucker isn't an investigative reporter.  He is simply a useful idiot and his time on Fox prepared him to do exactly what he did.

Honestly, I don't know if I would call it "anxiety" but I have had nights where for hours I have been awake thinking about this war.
I understand how important this war is for the direction this world can go, and I will keep following it until it is finished and will keep supporting the good guys in this war no matter how long it takes.
Personally I do recommend once in a while disconnecting from the internet and spending some time with family, go on a hike in the woods or something.
But ultimately compared to Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines, I really have nothing to be anxious about.
 

All complaints about pathing in the game will be refrred to this video forevermore.

https://x.com/TreasChest/status/1753285123418853818?s=20
 
Link doesn't want to embed, but it shows a pic of number of Lancet strikes per month and that the numbers went down after a Ukrainain strike on a factory for optics.
Deep strike works. Deeper strikes work harder.
Strategic bombing affects the tactical situation for the grunts on the ground.

Not really sure what “early assault failures” you are referring to. The only amphibious assault “failure” that I remember reading about was the initial Japanese amphibious assault on Wake Island shortly after their attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese launched an amphibious assault that was defeated by the U.S. Marine Detachment, who not only defeated the only amphibious assault to fail (in the Pacific), but also sank a Japanese destroyer while they vwere doing it.
Yes, the Marine and Army amphibious assaults were very costly for the Marines and Soldiers who made them (especially during the Navy’s island hopping campaign), but NONE of them “failed!”

Yes corruption exists in all societies, so likely true.
In WW2 people were involved in corruption and other crimes.
During the national COVID crisis there were many who ripped off the UK, hopefully some are getting justice now...
To think that in Ukraine there will be no corruption is naive.
It is good it is being tackled and those caught dealt with.

Thanks for your honesty.
I understand that there may be some difference in the interpretation of what "woke" is. I for one do not have a clue where something is woke or not, but it seemed to me the guy in this video meant that (he says so in his conclusion) giving less qualified (in physical and mental, motivational and intellectuel and yes, also gender-related area's) people more chances than better qualified persons, is "woke". And does not seem to work in the long run.
A friend of mine followed a one and a have year long computer/office-training programme. At the end of that course a job at a municipality department was available, and from the thirty graduates about ten or twelve of them wanted that job.
They gave the job to the least capable person, because they wanted a woman with an "emigrational background". That didn't make the other applicants very happy. I found out that she had scored by far the lowest on all tests/exams from all students (I never told my friend about that), and for some years I had to have an occasional business-like contact with that women and really, she was incompetent. Not only because she didn't understand relevant parts of the Dutch language, but she was unneccessary rude, and didn't really knew how to use the computersoftware.
I never understood why they gave her that job, and not to one of the (much) more qualified applicants. It was, like a said, municipal job, so except for annoying people and slowing down things, no harm was done. But I think that in an Army it is vital to choose people that are the most capable if available.
I think that has more to do with common sense than with being woke or racist or mysogynistic or intolerant.
 

And one more story with happy end, how drone team could spot and resque wounded soldier. In this time it was more hard - the guy hide behind knoked out vehicle, so drone hovered directly over him to determine it is own or foe and he is dead or alive. After soldier was recognized as own-alive, drone was charged with tea, flashlight and lighter - all this was dropped to soldier. The note was attached "If you can crawl follow the drone, rise a hand". But soldier likely lost own strenghth, so despite enemy was close, resque group was send and they could find and evacuate own comrade 
 

What makes you think that? I'm on that thread everyday. I've seen some less than accurate remarks, But no sign of unintelligent remarks that aren't called out by other posters.

It's because russia is losing and the war may not be over before the end of 2024. It won't look good to release a game about the war in Ukraine as the war will still be going on.... 
I  am pro-Ukrainian just calling it like I see it.
 
I hope I am wrong and this is all over soon and in a positive way for the Ukrainian people