Sarjen

Adding to the Ukrainian refugee issue, as a German school teacher I can tell you that there is a massive „lost generation“ coming up, of refugee children and teenagers in foreign countries who didn‘t finish their Ukrainian schools and at the same time learned close to nothing in their „new country“, in part because they felt they would soon be back home and took nothing we did seriously.
Now the rumor is that the education ministry in our state will pass down new directives soon to cover this up, regarding the grading of the students. Normally the rule is that we start grading them the 2nd year they are in country (we did it like that for the Afghans and Syrians etc.), but the performance of the Ukrainian students is so catastrophic that apparently the rules will be changed.

Ok, lets put all the rest of that uncited nonsense to the side.  I mean your theory of us "pushing" Ukraine into this war is frankly breathtakingly obtuse and directly from the red-hat camp.  I mean after this you can go back to whatever conspiracy websites you call home.
But let's just pull on this one singular thread.  So for once, I am calling on you...the kevinkin replacement we seem to get in various versions on this forum to actually prove your point beyond your own keyboard.  You state opinion like it was fact and frankly are spewing pro-Putin lines as though they are gospel.
"How is Ukraine losing this war?"  "How is Russia winning it?"  Feel free cite MacGregor.  Your position is that Ukraine has somehow "lost" by not achieving goals set out in the Summer '23 offensive.  What were those goals?  How do those goals determine the outcome of the war?
The Ukrainian military has already won this war.  Unlike whatever HBO/Hollywood narratives you subscribe to, wars rarely end in totals.  Victory parades and Johnny marching home.  The end somewhere in the middle.  In this case we have outlined repeatedly how Russia totally failed to achieve both their stated strategic objectives, and their most likely true ones.  Ukraine has achieved it major strategic objective...it still exists and is able to resist.  It retook roughly the same area of land as the size of freakin Ireland from what was supposed to be the second largest army in the world.
The Russian military is in tatters.  Blown all to hell.  They are still twitching but until I see an actual RA offensive that does not look like glorified leg humping, they are basically only good for holding the line.  NATO got Finland and will get Sweden.  Ukraine is in talks to join the EU.
So basically the Macgregor crowd - of which I am placing you - are now crowing because the UA was unable to re-take back those last few acres of the strategic corridor.  That is not only incredibly sh#tty given the loses they took in that effort, it is desperately trying to rejuvenate a broken narrative.  This war could freeze right where it is.  Ukraine could become like Korea, split.  And history will judge this a major Ukrainian victory.  
Actually, change that.  Don't even bother to try and prove your point because I already know what you are going to say- I have heard it a dozen times over now.  "Ukraine lost (yay!), we were right all along about US isolationism and the world will be such a better place if we stayed out of it altogether.  Oh and look who is blocking funding to Ukraine to keep them in the fight and then blaming everyone else because 'they are losing the war'"
Ok, we are done here...ignore.  

Well the I guess we had better grow the same spines as our grandparents then.  Because if we stand back and fail to defend the system we built we will lose those “mattering opinions”.  Since when did democracy = weak?  We won three global wars and built the damned system.  We can at least hold onto it.
Or is that how the “US put Ukraine in a shredder?”  Is US bashing and democracy-bad doing double duty?  Dictatorships are incredibly fragile and brittle because they rest on the shoulders of a few people.  History is filled with autocracies that collapsed due to single points of ruler failure.

Yeah, I wouldn't subscribe to "go tit for tat" either, I just have "seeing all electric substations and train conducting equipment near military installations and factories in Russia go up like napalm" on my Christmas list.
(also kill more Russian poultry just for hilarity, I want eggs to become the new currency on the Russian black market)

Well, no. Russia is expressly threatening NATO and trying to rebuild Soviet Union which threatened all non-communist countries with nuclear war. It is a self-declared enemy of all NATO countries - which probably includes yours (apologies if I assume incorrectly). Ukraine is a country fighting a defensive war against that enemy and Ukraine's win can undermine that enemy, allowing NATO years or decades of peace, without balooning defence budgets.
There are more than enough reasons to support Ukraine even if they go completely tit-for-tat with the russians and shoot a prisoner for every Russian attrocity. And use antipersonnel mines, cluster munitions and thermobarics which apparently are plenty effective. That moral high horse does not need to grow any higher.

And from our perspective, If UKR troops are behaving the same way as Russians, then why would we be involved at all?  You either represent something different i.e Human rights and democratic values or we won't have skin in this.
I understand the frustration Haiduk feels, but being different than the Russians is entirely the point.  And it is not impossible to win.  Despite the frustrations and the ongoing destruction that Russia commits, the fact is Ukraine still stands despite the overall imbalance of forces.
Just wish my own Gov't would get its act together and seriously commit itself wholeheartedly to knuckling Russian under.

I think infantry, terrain, and fortifications still very much matter. It is quite possible none of them will be quite the SAME going forward, but I don't think they are going away. They all seem to matter rather a lot around Avdivka.
See below.
Most of this response is rhetorical, but i am absolutely convinced that if Ukraine could put the power out in Moscow for a month this winter it make a large difference in this war. NATO has also done a ton of hemming and hawing on a vast number of issues that Ukraine has every right to angry about, since they have cost Ukrainian lives. The endless delay in releasing the cluster munitions we have released, and a number of types of them that we still haven't being example A. The endless back and forth about ATACMs, and then only giving them ten, and, and, and....
We vastly overestimated our ability to to land this thing on the exact glide path we (wrongly) seem to prefer, and it seems to be in danger of imploding because of it. When Ukraine was still standing in May 2022 we should have committed to WINNING this thing, not "improving our negotiating position. 

I just found out Tikhiy, the hero who shot and killed 7 Russian Scum storming their position on the road of life to Bakhmut in this unbelievable GoPro video has lost his life, together with Zheka. Both from the Da Vinci Wolves of Honor Group.


 

This is interesting comparision in itself, but it has its limits- of course modern Russia lacks balancing issues that were present in medieval times like influential, autonomic Church and heavily localized, basically independent elites (also a feature of late Romaioi).
Now, as far as I udnerstand chevauchees/rizza/reizy were highly destructive endevours, laying terrible waste to countryside. I more envisaged Wagner march to Moscow (note, it was usually called "March for Justice" or similar in Russian net) as something more resembling a strike or petition of disgruntled lower officials than true mutiny- such things happen, when there is no normal communciation between the top and people actually doing dirty work on the ground. A manifestation, to put the steam out of this boiling kettle. It may even have multiple beneficial effects in the end, of course looking from Kremlin perspective.
Yup, during night of Wagner march we instantly picked up an odd fact they have top AA, heavy assets with them. What is more interesting, there are rumours in the Russian net it were these soldiers (muscovite regulars joined with mercs) that didn't hesitate to shoot down the plane and possibly one of destroyed helicopters. This could put this "unlucky acident" in slithly different light than if some shadowy group of daredevil mercenaries did this. Kremlin tries to hush these rumours, as generally anything other connected to these events.  Very awkward situation.
 
Oh, you remember the Ukrainian soldier that was terrribly maimed whe jumped on mine? Reportedly he is doing ok and better:
 

No, Netherlands is not on "the far side of the moon".  This repeated dig at Netherlands seems quite uncalled for.  Netherlands support to Ukraine was immediate despite a large part of the population not being able to find Ukraine on a map.  After MH17 Netherlands has no illusions about modern russia.  MH17 was a deliberate act of war directed at Dutch people by russians.  Netherlands was immediately supportive of Ukraine in the current war.
Threats from Moscow were directed very early to Netherlands and the Port of Rotterdam in particular.  The nuclear hawks in Moscow were prominent.  The Dutch Government communicated a clear message that Patriot systems were on full alert and that Netherlands would not be intimidated.  The Dutch resolve has not faltered as far as I can see.  Netherlands is hosting more refugees than UK and is playing its part with provision of military and financial aid, as well as performing a vital logistics function.  Netherlands was one of the first if not the first to promise F16s.
Please let us resist the temptation to imagine fault lines in the Nato alliance.  When it comes to a russian threat to destroy the port of Rotterdam then believe me Netherlands is as much in the front line as Warsaw.

This would be the part about how this war is about a lot more than Ukraine trying to defend itself.  To be entirely brutal (yet accurate), this was became a major opportunity after about Apr 23.  An opportunity to knock Russia back in line with the international community and a global status quo that has endured for about 30+ years.  Russia was dumb enough and ill-prepared enough so the West scrambled for the chance at a nasty proxy war that 1) would not lead directly to NATO being pulled in/WW3, 2) could be contained to Ukraine and not blow up and out from there, 3) shore up NATO in both membership and funding, 4) result in regime change in Russia that we could do business with but not risk security everywhere, and 5) did not turn Russia into a complete freefall.  Not a great or easy opportunity but there it is.  The other option was to simply let it happen but that was simply letting things slide too far.
This is why we are doubling down on Ukraine - intersection strategic interests.  Not because we like them so much, or really care about their suffering.  There are lists of nations who were (and are) burning right now that we averted eyes and changed the channel.  There are conflicts that we stayed out of that were worse than Ukraine but that happened on the periphery.  Russia in Ukraine is right smack dab in the wheelhouse of challenging how we thought the world works.  We thought that nation states negotiating with war was over.  Intra-state and non-state, sure and nasty business "over there".  To have an international great power go "nope, we like the way of the gun and there is nothing you can do about it" risks the entire scheme.
So, no, we are not sending billions in military support or opening up our entire ISR architecture to Ukraine because it is the right thing to do in defending "the little guy".  Politicians are going to spin it that way because people buy it.  But this is harsh calculus time - we defend the scheme or risk it failing entirely.  Ukraine was the opportunity of a generation to have a war with Russia without really having a war.  Don't believe me, if Azerbaijan invades  Armenia again does anyone think they are going to see this sort of heat and light?  Why?  Because the rules based order can tolerate small side powers scrapping away, but one of the big boys...nope. 

regarding DPICM: we should put our ethical principles behind the needs of Ukraine, which follows a higher legal and moral imperative (defense against a war of aggression contrary to international law). One can remain of different opinion but ethics are nice to have when you are not bound to be eradicated by Russia. 

regarding DPICM: we should put our ethical principles behind the needs of Ukraine, which follows a higher legal and moral imperative (defense against a war of aggression contrary to international law). One can remain of different opinion but ethics are nice to have when you are not bound to be eradicated by Russia. 

regarding DPICM: we should put our ethical principles behind the needs of Ukraine, which follows a higher legal and moral imperative (defense against a war of aggression contrary to international law). One can remain of different opinion but ethics are nice to have when you are not bound to be eradicated by Russia. 

regarding DPICM: we should put our ethical principles behind the needs of Ukraine, which follows a higher legal and moral imperative (defense against a war of aggression contrary to international law). One can remain of different opinion but ethics are nice to have when you are not bound to be eradicated by Russia. 

regarding DPICM: we should put our ethical principles behind the needs of Ukraine, which follows a higher legal and moral imperative (defense against a war of aggression contrary to international law). One can remain of different opinion but ethics are nice to have when you are not bound to be eradicated by Russia. 

Pardon my words, but the balls on this man to venture to Snake Island….for those who can’t see the video,  Zelensky visited Snake Island, leaving behind wreaths to honor the fallen. Did so by boat.
 

I don't think Germany developed its own FASCAM system. The only types I found are of US source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Anti-Armor_Mine_System and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_denial_artillery_munition.
Maybe you are mixing it up with this shell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMArt_155

A solid point on PGM.  DPICM was really a better way to distribute lethality before PGM.  With PGM a few rounds can do the damage of many dumb, even DPICM.  However, what we do not know is the ammo situation of PGM in this war, nor that of dumb rounds either.  I doubt this decision ( if it is indeed not just a rumour) was taken on a whim “Oh hey, that’s right we got all those DPICM rounds” *slaps forehead*.  I suspect that this decision is an offset to another development, shortfalls in PGM ammo most likely.
So What?  Well the calculus is clearly between bad and worse, and they have gone with bad.  The terrain in the break in battle is already highly contaminated so this is fairly incremental risk at this point - I.e. happy rose cheeked Ukrainian children will not be frolicking in these fields for about a century regardless of UA DPICM or not.  So in order to keep the momentum of the grinding a hard decision was made…and here we are.
One thing this war has demonstrated is that when facing the harsh realities of long duration high intensity conventional warfare a lot of idealistic and aspirational ideas we had before the war have become strained.  The “quick clean weekend war” was the first one.  Facing existential conflict the dirty fact is that every nation on earth will likely abandon principles for interests and survival given enough pressure.  War is once again a race to the bottom.  Something to keep in mind on the whole unmanned debate. 
 

Russia is using chemical weapons at Bakhmut. 
 
 

Do you know what the biggest threat to Ukrainian civilians is? . . . Russians.

Don’t know if it’s true, but if fighter jets are coming after the counter offensive than the Ukrainians are dying for nothing. 
 
https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-not-receive-fighter-jets-061255539.html
 

Don’t know if it’s true, but if fighter jets are coming after the counter offensive than the Ukrainians are dying for nothing. 
 
https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-not-receive-fighter-jets-061255539.html
 

That is not really how it works.  Anything short of nuclear weapons in Ukraine is not going to give strategic deterrence.  Ukraine is waging an epic war right now but no weapons we can give Ukraine are going to deter Russia from the big nasty stuff. 
What is deterring Russia from the use of nuclear weapons on Kyiv is that it would raise our level of uncertainty about Russia as a rational state to a crisis point - the worse thing any revisionist power can do is get the West to get off the couch.  If we are being brutally honest, we in the West would feel very bad about Kyiv on the receiving end of a nuclear device but that is not what would cause the reaction…it would be the uncertainty of nukes in New York or Toronto (well maybe not so much Toronto).
That uncertainty would demand a response, and even Russia does not want to see what that would look like.  We brought them to their knees in a proxy war with a small power that was supposed to fall in a few days.  Do you think that maybe what happens if we really get involved isn’t in the Russian calculus?  I argue that the evidence that they have tied themselves into knots to avoid direct escalation with NATO proves that they are very concerned.
I do not think Russia has outpaced anything.  They are on the freakin defensive right now while managing whatever that freakin thing was a couple weeks ago.  No one serious is talking about Russian victory, we are too concerned with Russian full blown collapse.  They are barely able to conduct coherent anything right now, let alone a game of escalation dominance.  Most of the energy is trying to figure out how to prevent a Russian spiral, up or down because they are a complete hot mess.  
Syria, Georgia, Chechnya, we talked ourselves into a status quo lie, that much is true.  We embraced our certainty to the point that it became a blindfold.  Russia’s biggest mistake, and it is one for the history books, was tearing that blindfold off with this war.

The two of you have two narratives -
The Russians are savages who will stop at nothing to destroy Ukraine.
And
The West is sitting around and do nothing while the first one happens, and will continue to do so no matter what.
So if these are true…why hasn’t Russia simply used nuclear/chemical/whatever since day 1?  Why is this war even still happening?  Is Ukrainian resolve and resistance an effective deterrence to strategic nuclear strikes?  
If the West is so useless and, clearly ready to let Russia do whatever it wants (and you can come read justifications of this right here on this thread)…why do we even still have this thread?  Russias are genocidal savages who are being deterred from escalation…by what exactly?  Because we certainly know it is not the bumbling western powers.
Of course if this is the case then why are we spending billions to assist Ukraine?  Symbolism? Boredom?
Look, if you guys want to go bask in narratives that call for bloodbaths and holy crusades/WW3 there is a big ol Internet out there that will tell you exactly what you want to hear.  
If you want something that resembles a grown up conversation, stick around. But if you are advocating that we all jump on whatever crazy train that seems to float your boat right now: nope.
What is it gonna take for the West to directly intervene in this war?  You do not want to know.  And frankly this thread won’t matter if that happens because a lot of us will already be dead.