OBJ

This is quite possibly true, but the first shot is the best shot in things like this. Whatever he does in the next one will have less impact simply because the novelty/news factor of simply hearing from him will be gone. Putin had a chance to really present/reset his case to the english speaking world. His most quotable line was that WW2 was Polands fault. So in addition to wasting a golden opportunity to reframe the war to West at large he ensured that one of Ukraines strongest and most important allies will remain such.

Point, well made.

Nice to see the U.S. trying to innovate when it comes to countering the drone threat.

https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/3671743/centcom-conducts-week-long-hackathon/
 
 

1. WWI: was NOT just a war where armies slaughtered other armies from their trenches. This is a very simplistic, , western-front-centered  oversimplification. WWI was much more than the Western Front. In fact it was won by the Allies OUTSIDE the Western Front, by collapsing all other enemy fronts. It was also a war of movement indeed.
In 1914 it was a war of movement in the east and west. Russians broke the A-H front and took most of Galitzia in the East.Germans annihilated two Russian armies in East Prussia and Poland. It was also a war of movement in the west until the front got stabilized after the race to the sea. In 1915 Germans and Austrian broke the East Front in Gorlitze-Tarnow then advanced hundred of kilometers. Bulgaria entered the war, so Serbia was defeated and occupied. Turkey invaded the Sinai. In 1916, Russians launched the Brusilov offensive. In the best Russian tradition it was a incredible carnage, but there were larger advances and Austria-Hungary was on the verge of colapse. Romania entered the war on the Allied side. It was attacked and mostly occupied in a lighting campaign by the Central Powers.  In 1917 Russia collapsed and the Central Power armies advanced hundreds of kilometers inside Russia. The Caporetto offensive almost crushed the Italian Front, so Italy was on the verge of colapse. The Allied offensive captured Sinai and started the campaign which ended with the capture of Palestine and the final Turkish defeat. In 1918 the Italians won Vittorio Venetto battle, a general Allied advance in Italy started and A-H began its process to colapse. The Salonica front also collapsed leaving Bulgaria out of the war. Austria-Hungary had NO forces to cover the new fronts and the collapsing Italian front so eventually it surrendered. Then Germany, after Bulgaria, Turkey and A-H surrenders, had no forces to cover the Western Front and the whole Italian+Balkan front. 
In WWI case it was not exhaustion which made Germany surrender. All belligerent countries were as exhausted as Germany. Germany realized it was going to be check mated in three movements, so rather to fight to the grim end conceded defeat and signed an armistice. ALL countries were exhausted, including France, which had some mutinies in 1917, Italy and UK, not only Germany. 

2. At this point in the war I don't believe in a Russian colapse. Perhaps in three of four years, but I am not sure Ukraine will be able to wait for it and avoid collapsing itself. I am afraid that at present, time is more on the Russian side than the Ukrainian one. BTW I support Ukraine with no reservations. 

3. South Korea was a stalemate, not a South Korea-NATO victory indeed. SK survived, but North Korea survived too. Did both sides win? Did both sides lose? The fact is both countries are not even in peace yet. They have just signed an armistice.

4. Do are Stalingrad, Gettysburg and Waterloo examples of winning a campaign by just defending? First of all. They were BATTLES, no campaigns. The whole campaign including maneuvers where the side which took the offensive finally lost. If after those victories the defender had sit in his/her butt, doing nothing, but defending their defensive positions, there had been no results. In fact, in Gettysburg case there were no results. Meade didn't advance for weeks. Then finally, when it finally did it, it was too late, so it was defeated by Lee.

5. I already said an old Spanish saying "Quién no se consuela, es porque no quiere". which could be translated as "The person who does not console himself is because he does not want to do so". If there is no total, decisive victory, each side may claim they won in some degree. If Russia and Ukraine signed an armistice today,  Ukraine would survive as a nation. That would be a victory. However 20% of their territory and perhaps more population (including people who left the country and will not return) would be lost. That would be a defeat, wouldn't it?. Would it be 20% victory and 80% defeat, 80 victory and 20% defeat, or something in the middle?  I left it up to you. 
 

Well, I can't claim to be an expert in military history, world or any one nation's, or anyone's generals, but I do have the sense wars 'won' through exhaustion, tend to start up again as soon as one side or the other decides it is no longer exhausted. In the era of mobilized nation states, a ceasefire negotiated peace tends to leave the issues that caused the war in the first place unresolved. On the other hand, wars in which one side is utterly devastated, occupied and dictated a new form of government, those wars tend to be 'over,' the issues causing them being permanently removed.
So, if current fighting in Ukraine stops with a cease fire, possibly a negotiated 'peace,' show of hands, who here thinks that's the end of it, IF, what's left of Ukraine isn't brought into NATO and protected by article 5 before Russia reconstitutes? 
Do diametrically opposed political ideologies typically peacefully coexist for centuries, especially if they share a border? Is it worth differentiating between great power wars, minor power wars, minor power participation in great power wars and wars followed by a century or more in which the entire world geopolitical and technological situation changed?
Did the Allies really win WWI if they had to fight Germany/Axis in a much more destructive war 20 years later?
If NATO service chiefs are saying they need to be ready to fight Russia in 3-6 years, did the west really win the Cold War? Can a Cold War really be in the same conversation with a shooting war? Is deterrence the same as war? Is economic collapse without war the same as in a war?
I don't know but would guess the experts on any major power's national military history and past Generals are people having spent their professional lives (30+ years) making a career of it, in or out of uniform.
Again, I am no expert. I am interested in other's thoughts on above in relation to Ukraine.

Well, I can't claim to be an expert in military history, world or any one nation's, or anyone's generals, but I do have the sense wars 'won' through exhaustion, tend to start up again as soon as one side or the other decides it is no longer exhausted. In the era of mobilized nation states, a ceasefire negotiated peace tends to leave the issues that caused the war in the first place unresolved. On the other hand, wars in which one side is utterly devastated, occupied and dictated a new form of government, those wars tend to be 'over,' the issues causing them being permanently removed.
So, if current fighting in Ukraine stops with a cease fire, possibly a negotiated 'peace,' show of hands, who here thinks that's the end of it, IF, what's left of Ukraine isn't brought into NATO and protected by article 5 before Russia reconstitutes? 
Do diametrically opposed political ideologies typically peacefully coexist for centuries, especially if they share a border? Is it worth differentiating between great power wars, minor power wars, minor power participation in great power wars and wars followed by a century or more in which the entire world geopolitical and technological situation changed?
Did the Allies really win WWI if they had to fight Germany/Axis in a much more destructive war 20 years later?
If NATO service chiefs are saying they need to be ready to fight Russia in 3-6 years, did the west really win the Cold War? Can a Cold War really be in the same conversation with a shooting war? Is deterrence the same as war? Is economic collapse without war the same as in a war?
I don't know but would guess the experts on any major power's national military history and past Generals are people having spent their professional lives (30+ years) making a career of it, in or out of uniform.
Again, I am no expert. I am interested in other's thoughts on above in relation to Ukraine.

Have to quibble: Grant did fight at the start of the war and he did not fight at all like Lee. He also had a very clear sense of the strategic goals of his moves right from the beginning. I agree that Lee made the calculation you did above but he was very muddy on how to get there. 

WWI was finally won by the Allies on the offensive on ALL fronts. The Central Powers front in Salonika crumbled, Turkey's front in Palestine crumbled, and the Western and Italian fronts started to crumble too. 
Not losing is ALWAYS a poor man's "victory", a false victory in fact. In Spain we say that people who does not console himself is because he does not want to ("El que no se consuela, es porque no quiere"). There is no DECISIVE victory withouth at least one final offensive. Even Talibans and Vitnamese won with a final offensive.



 
 

Which was a rather large error. But once Grant figured out what was going on he did a fantastic job of not letting a mistake become a disaster. The Confederates on the other hand managed to turn early success into a fiasco that they never really recovered from.

I would argue that Grant was aggressive, but not careless. His single greatest strength when he took over the Army of the Potomac was the strategic understanding that the Confederates simply could not fight a war of attrition, then he made them fight one. Which they duly lost. This is not irrelevant to Ukraine's situation now. The war in Ukraine is coming down to which side runs out of something truly important first, whether that is fuel, money, men, surface to air missiles, or, or. We have to give Ukraine enough support that they can stay in the fight until Russia finishes breaking itself. If we give them enough support that Russian casualties go from approximately one thousand a day, to three thousand a day, it will end a lot sooner.

Grant was at Shiloh because Halleck ordered him there. 

1. War includes ATTRITION. Even if you do NOTHING, you loses men and equipment. Saying that war is just attrition is a HUGE oversimplification which reduces military art to just a matter of a slower or faster attrition of your enemy. If I get a victory in battle over my enemy, I have worn out the enemy army and its will, so is ANYTHING I do is  just a matter or attrition? If everything is reduced to just a matter of how much I can wear away my enemy, what's the reason to do a military maneuver or offensive? Just rain fire and lead over your enemy until no enemy soldier, tank or gun is left, or they decide to quit.
2. Germany did lose WWI because ALL fronts collapsed under Allied offensives and there was no way to stabilize them. The Balkan Front around Salonica was pierced, so Bulgaria went out of the war. Without Bulgaria that front was fully open and impossible to stabilize. The Italian front collapsed after Vittorio Venetto, so A-H, unable to stabilize the Balkan and Italian front finally went off the war. The Turkish fronts also collapsed, so Turkey finally surrender. Germany surrendered in November 11th, 1918 , but at that moment Germany was fighting alone because all other Central Power allies (Bulgaria, Turkey and Austria-Hungary) had collapsed after successful enemy offensives and surrendered. Attrition helped to undermine CP's resistance, but the final victory was won via good, old, traditional offensives that crushed entire enemy fronts until Germany was not able to keep them under control. Moreover, victory was worn by new tactics and weapons born from new military thinking, not by mere attrition. Attrition keep the war going for 4 years until new tactics and new ideas finally brought the war to and end via successful offensives.
3. If Ukraine resorts to pure defensive and strategy based in attrition, it might be able to avert defeat (if Ukrainian collapse is avoided first, that is), but it won't be able to win. Ukraine would be able to just "win" a stalemate.
In a traditional war, with front lines, etc., the pace of attrition is set by the attacker, never by the defender. The Russian army is burning lots of soldiers and equipment in their horrid meat offensives/holocausts (BTW a tradition in Russian military history that has worked more often than not), but they sacrifice just the forces they are prepared to sacrifice, not a single soldier more. If the Russian runs out  of soldiers, it just stops and recruits more meat until they have enough for more meat offensives. Then Ukraine only options are to accept the attrition exchange on Russian terms while Russia wants, or retreat to avoid excessive attrition. The only way to break that vicious circle is by finding a way to attack the enemy and put him out of balance, so you are the one who decides the attrition cicle. The only way to do it is via an offensive.
3. Sooner or later you must attack and maneuver in order to get a victory, that is , impose your will and objetives over those of your enemy . Attrition just paves the way for victory, but it is not a victory in itself until  you destroys the enemy will with successful maneuver offensives.

I barely recognize the country I was born in any longer: 
“it still faces stiff headwinds in the Republican-led House, where right-wing lawmakers oppose sending additional assistance to Ukraine. Some have even threatened to oust Speaker Mike Johnson if he brings any bill to the floor that includes aid for Ukraine.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/briefing/senate-ukraine-aid-vote-us-strike-iraq.html

not so much anxiety as frustration.  I am so pissed at my own gov't right now for being so fk'in lame.

A "wargame" looking at the utility of robot wingmen:
https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/the-need-for-collaborativecombat-aircraft-for-disruptive-air-warfare/
 
https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/The-Need-For-CCAs-for-Disruptive-Air-Warfare-FULL-FINAL.pdf

I guess we'll see where European support goes. I am disgusted by my (US) country's conservative politics, not what I signed up for. I am left with the hope Europeans can hold things together until US national politics comes more into balance, which I fervently hope is this year.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-is-europe-starting-to-change-its-strategy/a-68188384

I guess we'll see where European support goes. I am disgusted by my (US) country's conservative politics, not what I signed up for. I am left with the hope Europeans can hold things together until US national politics comes more into balance, which I fervently hope is this year.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-is-europe-starting-to-change-its-strategy/a-68188384

I guess we'll see where European support goes. I am disgusted by my (US) country's conservative politics, not what I signed up for. I am left with the hope Europeans can hold things together until US national politics comes more into balance, which I fervently hope is this year.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-is-europe-starting-to-change-its-strategy/a-68188384

I guess we'll see where European support goes. I am disgusted by my (US) country's conservative politics, not what I signed up for. I am left with the hope Europeans can hold things together until US national politics comes more into balance, which I fervently hope is this year.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-is-europe-starting-to-change-its-strategy/a-68188384

I guess we'll see where European support goes. I am disgusted by my (US) country's conservative politics, not what I signed up for. I am left with the hope Europeans can hold things together until US national politics comes more into balance, which I fervently hope is this year.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-is-europe-starting-to-change-its-strategy/a-68188384

It turns out wiper fluid is a very important item in a war zone if you are lucky enough to still have a windshield.
And drones are just better at moving targets, they are probably even better that really expensive gun launched PGMs most of the time, and cost only a tiny fraction. I grant that ability to simply suppress a whole tree line isn't nothing, but with the ever rising counter battery threat that is a lot of rounds to stand and fire.
The_Capt also mentioned that FPV drones were better because they could be aimed at the most vulnerable spots. Given the number of FPV drones that seem to to do the last hundred yards/meters on prayer I am less than sure about this factor. And a slightly better autonomous drone that just fired an explosively formed projectile straight down at the center of mass as viewed from the top would seem to cover most of the bases. RPG warheads aren't used because they are perfect, merely because they are around.

Don't know if either below will be of interest to you or not, both are higher than tactical discussions. The second one may already have been referenced by the CMCW designers.
Into the 80s in Mech Bns Pre-Bradley/still 113 based, the MECH Bn/TF TOW company was a support and admin HQ. TOW Platoons were attached to Mech Companies to give the Mech Cos. long range AT fires, just as you posit.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA384122.pdf
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://history.army.mil/html/books/069/69-4-1/cmhPub_69-4-1.pdf

Sea drones, learning from the Ukrainians to be ready to beat the Chinese. "The program was inspired in part by the low-cost lethal surface drones developed by Ukraine and built with off-the-shelf components, USNI News understands." See US 'Replicator' initiative.
https://news.usni.org/2024/01/30/pentagon-puts-out-call-for-swarming-attack-drones-that-could-blunt-a-taiwan-invasion
Russian convicts military contracts, longer, less lenient, automatically 'renew' when they conclude, result of unhappy RA non-convicts and relatives. Apparently in the convict 'Storm V' units attrition is high and morale is low. Russian tradition of  frontline penal units continues.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68140873

Sea drones, learning from the Ukrainians to be ready to beat the Chinese. "The program was inspired in part by the low-cost lethal surface drones developed by Ukraine and built with off-the-shelf components, USNI News understands." See US 'Replicator' initiative.
https://news.usni.org/2024/01/30/pentagon-puts-out-call-for-swarming-attack-drones-that-could-blunt-a-taiwan-invasion
Russian convicts military contracts, longer, less lenient, automatically 'renew' when they conclude, result of unhappy RA non-convicts and relatives. Apparently in the convict 'Storm V' units attrition is high and morale is low. Russian tradition of  frontline penal units continues.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68140873

Sea drones, learning from the Ukrainians to be ready to beat the Chinese. "The program was inspired in part by the low-cost lethal surface drones developed by Ukraine and built with off-the-shelf components, USNI News understands." See US 'Replicator' initiative.
https://news.usni.org/2024/01/30/pentagon-puts-out-call-for-swarming-attack-drones-that-could-blunt-a-taiwan-invasion
Russian convicts military contracts, longer, less lenient, automatically 'renew' when they conclude, result of unhappy RA non-convicts and relatives. Apparently in the convict 'Storm V' units attrition is high and morale is low. Russian tradition of  frontline penal units continues.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68140873