Gpig

(from Kriegsforscher twitter)

At least the X guy had the decency to admit he is a novice.  His analysis is a bit of a mess.  The objectives he lists are really all over the map (literally and figuratively).
I think it has been termed “The Death of Expertise”.  Social media, and now AI, has lowered the cost of information to the point that one no longer needs to demonstrate proof of work.  The problem is that information is not knowledge.  The ability to take information, or as we have gone on about - negative information (things that should be seen but are not), and synthesize it into knowledge based understanding is not something one can do with a Twitter account.  It takes years of study to create the critical analysis frameworks and foundational understanding that allows one to take new information and understand it in context.
We see this “college boy, eh?” type of thinking in vulnerable sectors of society.  Those that were not afforded the opportunity to gain expertise can now appeal that condition.  Further expertise can be wrong - that should probably be the first rule of experts.  In fact an expert will know they are wrong before anyone else.  Being an expert is not about being right all the time, it is about understanding what we know, what we don’t know and why.
So we have people who are facing enormous uncertainty and are compelled to try and solve that.  They form information spheres they trust and then use that to try and understand better…to be more certain.  It is what we have been doing here since Day 1 - world went nuts, we seek certainty in community.  Problem is when a community is built on biases or skewed perceptions.  We have walked that precipice on more than one occasion on this very forum.
In the end, it is not about “shut up and take what I say as gospel”, in fact any community that is doing that is probably toxic.  It is about clear and objective analysis of facts, due diligence in self-monitoring and correction and proof of work in making analysis and synthesis happen.  Everyone and anyone may contribute to this community, but it must contribute.  Signal not noise.  Not for me to judge noise, the meritocracy of the community (and moderators) do that for us.

Thanks guys.  Guess who got tagged to do a Future of Joint Warfare piece at work?  Yep, the guy who won't shut up about it.  If Steve was particularly profit driven he would charge a membership fee for this thread.

Almost looks like a Stuart
 

That's an interesting opinion on what's going on.  Except that we're spending nearly 800 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR on our military.  OMG we're going broke because we used ~5% of our already spent money to actually try to do something, militarily, that will help the world be a better place.   What cumulative effect on our country??  This is just utter horses-t.  If we had just stood by & let Putin win in UKR would he then decide to not try to poison all the world's democracies?  Would he not use fossil fuels to extort europe every time he wanted to?  This is tankie nonsense.
We have mountains of gear gathering dust and that's a huge portion of what we've sent.
And just because I am on a rant on this:  How about we turn this around by saying "those that want to freeze the conflict haven't given any thought to the cumulative effect on the world of pulling Putin's *** out of the fire".  Gawd this makes my blood boil.  

This one is just bad enough that it may get the Speaker of the House to resign - that position is nothing like the ones in the US.  Right now half of the reporters in Ottawa are digging into that old guys past like mad and if they come up with anything really nasty, like the guys unit did some dark stuff, it could push the whole thing over the edge.  Gawd, but we look like the country rubes we are this week. 

I always loved that painting.

Aftermath of yesterday strike on Russian base in Melitopol. It's claimed Russian HQ was hit and allegedly commander and chief of the staff of 58th CAA were wounded along with other officers. 

They will be very disappointed by their new places, what with it being seven feet by three feet, and six feet deep. You always have read the fine print of the fine print in a Russian contract. You have to read it twice, carefully, and sober. 

At the operational level; sure. But at the intimate tactical level (you know, the level that CM deals with), minefields were kind of a non event. They explain why particular actions were fought where they were fought, but they didn't really influence the actions themselves.
SNIPE was fought 'on the far side' of the devil's garden, not in it.
8th Armd Brigade's inept reproduction of the Charge of the Light Brigade was 'on the far side' of the devil's garden, not in it.**
Tel el Eisa was fought ... actually, nowhere near minefields.
Alam Halfa was fought on the near side of the minefields.
Ruweisat Ridge (battle no.s 1 through to about 6 or 7) was fought before the minefields were a thing.
El Mrier didn't feature minefields.
etc.
There was some fighting for defensive positions on the night of 23 Oct, but those were mostly walkovers (= boring from a CM perspective). Most of the opening night consisted of extended lines of infantry plodding forward behind barrage lines across 2-3km of rocky desert in the dark, hoping like hell they didn't step on any 'slpodies. There were numerous platoon-company sized actions during that night to reduce defended localities, outposts, and listening posts (which could make for some interesting byte-battles), but as a designer there would be no play value in simulating the approach plod through the garden. Just cut to the good bit where the contact actually occurs. Then there is no need for breaching, and no need for artillery even since the barrage has buggered off into the distance.
All of which is to say that a tactical level look at Alamein without breaching is at least as do-able as a tactical level look at OVERLORD without gliders or landing craft.
 
** in the process clearly demonstrating that armour has been obsolete since October 1942!

Some out of the ordinary footage.  Seen from both first person and drone camera (with sub-titles)
Here's a link the full 13 minute video
https://twitter.com/73RDARM/status/1701334364817424587

. . . And failed on all counts.

All I can say is that in over 20 years being a member of this forum, I've never hit the Ignore button. Until today.

So this is what you got?  I teach “young warriors” and have led dozens in combat while you likely sat at home and yelled at the tv - you are no vet I can tell that from your first post.
Let’s stop the BS and call this what it really is - political platforming.  Your position is not all that difficult to read, pretty transparent.  Basically everything the current US presidential administration is doing is “wrong”.  “Right” is whatever “our guy would do as opposite”.  So President Biden is pursuing a deliberate incremental strategy to compress Russia, so your position is “more firepower” and “hard staring”.  Or you jump on the “this war is stupid, we must negotiate”.  Basically anything President Biden is doing is “wrong” and anything they are not doing is “right”.  That has been the sum total of your contributions to this entire discussing since you showed up (oh, and some bizarre social commentary on women and social justice for good measure).  That is it.  One long “very stable strategic genius” diatribe anchored on a single viewpoint.  If President Biden declared the US was going to “end this thing in 4 weeks” you would be here yelling that “this was the dumbest thing ever” and probably quote my points as why.
You know it is ok.  You are just another in a very long line of segments of the population that surrender their own agency in the face of uncertainty.  We invented the Church which has lasted over 2000 years on exactly that principle.  Agency and independent thought is to embrace uncertainty and most people really don’t want to do this, it is scary.
Problem is you wandered onto the wrong forum.  This place has been home to a lot of independent thought since before this war started. We have pursued the facts as we can find them and then conduct collective analysis and synthesis to try and establish a clear picture of what is happening.  No one here has surrendered independent thought to a political position.  We all have opinions, I for one think President Biden’s administration has done very well in managing this crisis.  Not perfect but considering we are well off the strategic map here, they have done as well as reasonably possible.  
I am not an American, I do not participate in your political process so I do not share your baggage.  I cannot fix you or even try to change your mind, you clearly have it all figured out.  But you are not going to find friends here. Your missionary work on this forum is a waste of time.  
But it is ok.  With this last, I promote you to Hot Thread “crazy guy”.  It is a honorary position that has been vacant since John Kettler left us (rest in peace John).  You can go on and on but we all know it is for entertainment purposes only.  I am even going to un-ignore you because I am going to be first to rub your unruly mop of hair and just smile at your incorrigible rapscallion ways.  Your are a stump thumping looney kevinkin, but you are our looney.  Try not to get banned because then we will have to find another.
 

Ok, well I don't want to act unfairly in responding to a person who is deciding not to post any more on the thread so I will offer to continue this discussion with kevinkin in DMs, if he's interested.  However I did want to address some recent posts here because I think it speaks to a wider misunderstanding that is distressingly common when discussing complicated issues and has led to similar conflicts on this thread in the past.
Kevin, if you're still reading this (and as I say, you may respond to me in DM if you like - I don't want to provoke you into a further argument in this thread), it's not the positions you hold but your unwillingness to properly explore them which frustrates.  This leads to you gish-galloping your way through three or four 'positions' in each post.  Then, when someone tries to pin down and engage with a single one (like I and others did with 'stare down Putin' and The_Capt did with 'win the war in 4 weeks') we don't get much in response.  I tried to encourage you to expand on the 'staring' position, to see if there was anything to actually discuss there (I do believe that you believe you are raising fair points) but your response to a list of things the US did with the intelligence they had was to ask what the US did with the intelligence they had.  I mean, at my most charitable I could assume that it was a rhetorical question but without any elaboration from you about why the previous answers to such a "rhetorical" question might not count...  Mate, do you not see how that might quickly become frustrating?
The below quote is demonstrative of another problem:
People should be aware that "single points" don't exist in the real world.  If one is trying to drill down to the truth of a matter then dragging multiple different topics together is unavoidable and necessary because ultimately everything is interacting, everywhere, all the time.  The_Capt, in a very particular sense, did write "paragraphs to make a single point" but that was precisely because addressing a single point requires exploration of many others.  That was his point!  In another, slightly less confusing sense, The_Capt's point intent was to just hint at the actual time, effort and patience which would be required to actually start answering one of kevinkin's one-liner questions by pointing out all the other questions which would have to be asked and answered at the same time.
My friendly advice to kevinkin or anyone else who is considering "just asking questions" or raising "points" which go against the "group-think" on this board:
Ask yourself the question Decide what you think the answer might be Think of and ask yourself at least 3 different questions directly related to the answer to your initial question Decide what you think the answers might be to each of those 3 Consider the implications of the combined 4 answers you are now holding in your mind Ask yourself whether they make sense together, as the beginnings of a coherent potential "truth" If they do make sense together and they contrast with what you perceive as the dominant viewpoint on this thread or elsewhere then you may have an interesting point.  Go ahead and make it, simultaneously making your case by including your thinking about the 3 other 'satellite' questions.  This demonstrates the way you are thinking.  It is helpful, interesting and it will be appreciated by those who are minded to respond. If they don't make sense together, try again*.  If you are still unable to find a sensible "truth" which explains them all, that's great because you may have an interesting question.  Go ahead and ask it, simultaneously including your thinking about the 3 other 'satellite' questions and what you are finding difficult to understand.  This demonstrates the way you are thinking.  It is helpful, interesting and it will be appreciated by those who are minded to respond. Listen to/read the response(s) you get, think about them and engage with the precise thoughts that people raise, doing your best to help people relate the discussion back to your original question. Sound too much like hard work?  Welcome to a discussion about a very complicated issue.  People spend lifetimes studying, thinking about and writing about this stuff and it's not because they are overly verbose or for want of anything better to do.
 
*In particular it may be helpful to think about answers which do not involve the USA.  Only a very small minority of real-world global decisions are made with the USA in mind, so you'd be surprised how often this might help.

Praise be. 
 

I have largely ignored you because it is pretty clear that you are not in fact interested in actually learning anything on this forum.  However, in reality this is an honest question that some lurkers may also be asking.  Why can’t the US, or NATO or an alliance in between “win this war in 4 weeks and just end this brutal war?”  Don’t need an essay really:
-  Put the nuclear escalation to the side for arguments sake but we will come back to it.
-    A US direct incursion into Ukraine or this war is going to drive a massive amount of support into Putin’s arms, to the point he might actually get full mobilization support.  A fully mobilized and galvanized Russia is a scary beast particularly since they will likely be heavily backed by both China and Iran as they will see the entire expansion of the war as a chance to defeat the US by proxy.  So now the US has four weeks to push Russia out of Ukraine, could they do it?  Probably?  Would it end the war…no way.  It would likely expand it as Russia gears up for a serious fight because now it has reason to have one. The totality of your position is that you are in fact pointing madly at a “limited war” but your solution is “more limited war”…oh wait maybe you are not talking about a limited war.
- ok, to defeat Russia, truly defeat them, it means not simply driving them out of Ukraine.  It means total defeat of Russia as a nation.  The destruction of Russian Will to fight.  This means going into Russia itself and removing its ability to generate that Will.  So we are talking invasion, defeat in detail and occupation…of Russia.  The military force the US would need to do that is well outside the US military current envelope, we are talking millions of troops.  Let’s pretend Russia can be occupied, it is a big country (look at a map).  You now need to hold it until you can install a friendly government…and remember you brought up total war.  So the US and most of NATO would now need conscription to sustain a force that large…you feeling strong?
- “But we will stop at the border”, sure and Russia will now simply reload and incite as much violence and discontent in Ukraine…now filled with US troops.  What possible negotiated end-state is there where Russia can still function while massing for WW3? No, you cannot give Russia time to reload…that would be really dumb.  So now you would need to contain Russia…in the 21st century…with China on one of its borders…and Iran.  That is a massive problem.  The state sponsored terrorism issues alone will be intense.  Again, this is limited measures that won’t “end” anything but risk a lot worse.
- Back to occupation, the risk of a resistance from hell is incredibly high.  See the many lengthy posts on that issue.  Very angry and well supported by various powers an occupied Russia could make Iraq look like a weekend outing.  Oh wait, there is more,
- Russia might fly apart while you are trying to occupy it.  Not known for its shining unity, occupation could see Russia itself fly apart and the the US is trying to manage a civil war…and a possible insurgency.
- Ok, now the obvious one…WMDs.  Let’s pretend that Russia won’t use them on good old “Merican” boys as they counter attack into Ukraine and encroach on the Russian border.  They sure as hell will if the US invades Russian soil, which we have to now.  And even if they don’t there is no way in this universe we can guarantee we can secure them all.  Now we may have lose WMDs of many flavours lose in this mess.
To put it more simply and in words with as few syllables as I can: To defeat  Russia and end this war in 4 weeks the US would need to break Russia.  To break Russia is to engage in a major war, possibly global.  It would break the UN, it would shatter NATO because I can think of at least a dozen nations that would get off that train quickly.  Economically it would break the system as we are talking markets staring down the barrel of nuclear Armageddon.  Anything short of that is just more limited war with even slimmer margins than we are already on.
So when you declare that “the US could end this thing in 4 weeks” all you are doing is loudly announcing just how much you do not understand.  If you honestly want to learn, maybe stop typing and start reading more. 
 

The "proof" of that is everything they did in the lead up to the war that you seem completely uninterested in learning anything about and the string of non sequiturs you've appended above makes that entirely obvious. 

Too many tokes over the so-called “thought experiments” line. 
Never used the blocked button before, but life is far too precious to waste. With regrets, as something must be going wrong.

No it wasn’t and I don’t think you need to.  It is a stupid narrative proposed either by opportunists or fools.  The time for “staring” was between 2014 and 2022 and we failed on that at every turn across the entire political spectrum.  The reasons were pretty simple - you can’t just stare, you have to be ready to back it up, and no one in the US or entire western world was going to do that for Ukraine.  The costs were simply too high on too many levels. This entire post-crisis “tough guy” narrative is a pretty oblivious ploy to try and pin the blame for this war on one side or another.  We all watched Russia doing dirty in the region and basically did nothing…in some cases we made it worse.
”But air power!”  Ok dingus, how much do you think positioning that amount of AirPower in the region would have cost?  Air power is not a magic wand, it is a massive military capability one has to surge, stage and keep at readiness levels, costing billions to do so over the timescales the “staring” would have occurred.  The bill for massive overmatch of the Russian air forces would have been (and frankly still is) very high.  Let alone if we really had to do it, and completely ignore escalation risks. Same people would be quacking about “ridiculous government spending in Ukraine” that is would have taken to actually set up “staring” - unless it was their guy in charge, which is a whole other problem.
 One is not an expert “strategist” because you can regurgitate some spin-lines dreamt up by a political ad agency. You are fool being played because it is so much easier to let someone else do all that hard thinking and make this whole complicated world so simple.  And before anyone weighs on on left or right…both sides do it so let’s just not get into that.  Best thing you can do for yourself is get a library card, read a lot of history and a wide range of political sciences/military affairs.  Do the hard work for yourself.  

..and if the likely targets have anything they can do to escape/counter the Lancet in time. That was my main thought when watching the video: the drone operator may have been shouting “Lancet! ****ing Lancet!” but I bet the tank commander was shouting back “What the **** do you expect me to do about it?!”

Alright, I’ll bite (just this once) in case clearing it up once and for all might stop it being posted 3-4 times a day…
What does this even mean?  Amongst all the thoughts you post (which are honestly sometimes pretty hard to untangle) this one seems to come up more often than anything else.  It’s an analogy, right?  ‘staring down Putin’?  What is it actually an analogy for?
The article in your own post points out that “The United States thus sought to leverage intelligence in a manner to convince allies of the imminent threat and, to a lesser degree, dissuade Moscow from acting, while signaling that it had deep insights into the Kremlin’s plans.”
So the US basically told Russia they knew about their plans, told all their allies, told Ukraine and mobilised the alliance we see today to implement unprecedented sanctions against Russia and unprecedented financial and military support for Russia’s intended enemy.  I’m honestly not sure what other reasonable measures could have been taken at the time.
What else do you mean by “stare Putin down”?
Oh and, fair warning: if your response mentions B-52s or a no-fly zone I will be forced to conclude that you’re either trolling or basing your suggestions on video game experience, at which point I’ll apologise to the rest of the board for bringing it up and duck out.