dan/california

Just because it's cool
 

So that is how you are translating Macron’s position?  That France is so invested in Ukraine that it is willing to risk nuclear war and direct French involvement in this war rather than let Ukraine fall?
Well first off that is simply not true. Macron, who btw in a liberal democracy does not represent all French people everywhere, is proposing we take another rung up an escalation ladder to shore up Ukraine and demonstrate resolve.  If he were so invested in Ukraine to the point that this war is indeed existential to France then we would likely be seeing French formations in Ukrainian already. 
This war definitely has an impact on European security.  In fact it is pretty clear that European security has already been destabilized by Russia violation of international order.  However, your argument is also sucking and blowing at the same time.  You argue that Russia winning in Ukraine is existential, but that threat will somehow fracture the alliances designed to counter that threat.  That is not how things work.  Russia success, which frankly is a pretty long shot, would drive nations together within NATO because of the increasing insecurity, not pull them apart.  We have seen this effect already with Sweden and Finland.
Further Macron is not right - you are immediately saying that he is because it supports your position (somewhat).  Nor are his motives pure.  Macron is playing the French power card for domestic consumption.  He is making a move to be seen as a leader within Europe in this perpetual echo of the 20th century.  He is using this war as an opportunity.  Again of France was truly “all in” then as a free nation, there would already be French troops in Ukraine in force.  Macron is posturing and signaling to effect.
The fact that you somehow translate this as “Hey France is ok with nuclear brinksmanship over Ukraine” really demonstrates where your thinking is at in this matter.  You are free to have and express your opinion but my position is that you are wrong.  Ukraine is very important.  The West still has escalation room and may use it.  But we are not going to risk a full on direct war with Russia over Ukraine without a concomitant direct attack by Russia on NATO.  We already did WW1 - where the world got pulled into a conflagration over a small power - in the nuclear age this is not an option.
Macron is free to posture and even escalate unilaterally.  But Ukraine does not pose an existential threat to either Europe or NATO, no matter what rhetoric is employed.  In fact the existential threat Macron refers to is a loss of security guarantees from the US, which is a whole other thing.  The threat is a global power vacuum if the US contracts due to domestic politics - the leading Republican candidate is a convicted criminal FFS. This entire thing is no longer even about Ukraine, it is about European security in a post-US world. That is a much larger problem that a glorious victory in Ukraine will not solve, but a defeat may create a forcing function.
My honest opinion, and has been for some time, is that you are staring far too hard at this one war.  It has become unhealthy and bordering on obsession. From your comments for some time now, the future of all humanity seems to hang on this conflict.  This has skewed your logic into very dangerous waters but if the only lens you apply to international relations is Ukraine then it probably makes sense.  My honest advice is to maybe take a break from this and look up and around. There are other things happening in the world other than this war. The primary strategy of every major power has been to contain it, manage it and push for the best outcome we can - not full on direct involvement which would come with expansion.

Tbh I did not reply to you cause I figured Macron was acting purely rhetorically, but with the recent news of him pushing for western troops in Ukraine, it seems more appropriate to review.
Macron has been signaling his heel turn for a while, headlines in March and April that the West should cross red lines when dealing with Putin.  WSJ article from April 3: https://archive.ph/EO8HC Now, WSJ on the French initiative of trainers in Ukraine: https://archive.ph/khcMe
From April 3 link, Macron presented his desire to move to strategic ambiguity first in February, ending with a public move to pledge military options including western troops would not be ruled out. He quickly got publicly isolated by Biden and Scholz in Feb. as noted in the article, but despite that he gained some support, with statements from Polish and Lithuania noting it could be possible. Article goes into further detail about him presenting the proposal in Feb and getting isolated among NATO nations and then walking on stage and declaring it should not be ruled out.
In terms of "if Kiyv falls" Macron is worried about the fracturing of NATO not via Central Europe/Eastern Europe folding to Russia, but a scenario where U.S support in the event of a NATO vs Russia scenario is no longer ironclad meaning a Russian calculus of succeeding in conflict with NATO goes up.
In that sense, if Ukraine falls, this is Macron's thinking not me mind u, the risk of broader regional or global conflict is already heightened between Europe vs Russia.
My entire point mind you was to point out that striking dual use targets was not immediately nearing nuclear war escalation, to which you declared that Ukraine was not that important vs potential nuclear war via escalation mismanagement and that NATO would prefer to let Kiyv fall than risk that outcome.
I then pointed out to you NATO is not united in that outlook you framed as "Ukraine is not important enough" and that suggesting NATO should be afraid of nuclear war enough to risk Ukraine falling, would instead risk the NATO alliance where allowing Ukraine to fall would cause fractures in the alliance and increase the potential of further conflict including nuclear.
The current Macron stance represents that possibility pretty clear. France, a nuclear power and NATO country is actively pushing to involve Western troops into Ukraine, is gathering a coalition of countries to make the same commitments and doing so despite sustained opposition by major NATO allies precisely seemingly to ensure Ukraine's fall is out of the question, risking further escalation via the involvement of Western troops in harms way, finding that preferable to alternatives where Ukraine does fall.
 

Found a report on the Bradley - BTR close encounter. Apparently the BTR was spotted and the Bradley was sent out to intercept.
 
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-m2-bradley-destroys-russian-btr-82a-in-fierce-skirmish/

The Iranians already hand out pointy sticks, and even slightly more sophisticated flying pointy sticks, to anyone who will grunt "death to America" three times and do a funny dance. The limiting factor on the deal is the number people who want to worry that every buzzing sound they hear for the rest of there lives is a drone that would like to discuss the error of their ways.

Exactly. So let’s take that Ukrainian trench problem. That is a full scale battalion assault problem.  As per western doctrine we would assign a full battlegroup/TF to that job.  3x infantry Coys, Tanks, Engineers, close support.  That is roughly 50 F ech vehicles.  I do not think people appreciate how much real estate and road space that sort of force takes.  The there is the added logistics support behind it. We are talking about a force likely in and around 100 vehicles all up.
So in this environment 100 vehicles concentrating are going to get picked up maybe 20-30 kms out.  Nobody has vehicle parks closer than 100kms because they are prime targets for HIMARs.  So you pull 100 vehicles together to organize and mount this attack - that is a coupe major road moves.  Now the UA is supported by ISR from God.  AI support can pick out patterns. Space-based, strategic high flyers and operational stand off - all of this before the tac drones even kick in.  At best 100 vehicles are going to be spotted 10s of kms out and if you are really lucky won’t get hit by long range fires. But the UA knows you are coming and has plenty of time to swing resources to meet them.  
Once you cross the line of departure you can expect long range drones, loitering munitions, PGM artillery etc to hit you before you even get into DF range. You are a big force so the UA is going to muster a lot in your direction. Then you get within DF range and the tac FPVs and ATGMs kick in - hell, the UA might even send a sniper tank or two your way.
You have no surprise. Concentration has brought concentrated fires. Your logistical lines are vulnerable and being hit.  And the enemy can see you, down to the squad level the entire way,  air support is denied, except maybe for bomb lobbing from 50kms out. This is not that the Russians have somehow forgotten how to put a Bn into an attack. It is that to try and do so is suicidal.  So what do they do?  Penny packet, disperse and try smaller attacks on separate axis.  Of course then you simply do not have enough troops to do much even if you them through to an objective.  So what do you do?  Send in wave to try and exhaust the UA and take small bites.

Maybe they can trade them for the WSJ reporter, and some of the other foreign nationals the Russians are holding on transparently trumped up charges.

Since there was a drone up filming the encounter, not so sure the Brad was caught off guards. But without broader context, who knows? Would be great to see an AAR from the Bradley crew.

To be sure, there will always be a front edge of battle.  I am just not sure metal boxes filled with humans will be part of that equation anymore.  Because neither humans nor direct fires are what land warfare will be all about.  It will be about systems built largely on other things,

The interesting bit is the the drone dropping an antitank mine right about the halfway point. The second half is VERY graphic, so skip that if you are sensitive
 
This last one is more proof of Ukrainian FPV drones operating at much greater depth ☝️
 
This Sub Reddit hs more drone footage than i have time to watch, it just goes on forever. 
 

Weren't they already sending weapons to our adversaries before the war? Before domestic demand got dialed up to 11 foreign exports were the main source of income for the Russian defense industry. Also, I have doubts about their ability to bring their export market back up to prewar levels even after the war is over.

The off ramp that everyone wants the Russians to take is starting to look narrower and narrower. The entire current regime is bound ever more tightly to both Putin and the war. There is no organized succession mechanism to speak off. Where do things go from here without either breaking the Russian army completely? Or throwing the Ukrainians under the bus?

I don't think the contingencies are very obvious in situations like this. The German and Russian empires had no obvious paths in their death throes and even the final convulsions didn't look so very final until quite suddenly they were. We can and should expect everything and nothing. We don't have enough information to know.

Definitely intense and crazy, but isn’t this a bit of a self- confirming bias?  I mean if two sides are pushing IFVs at each other of course they are going to be seen using DF, those are the primary weapons on their main platforms.  If both sides sent out platoons armed with swords and we had video of them in a sword fight, it really isn’t evidence that swords are still applicable as a primary weapon (nod to the bayonet accepted).
I think DF will definitely still happen but it will happen more and more between an unmanned edge and after over the horizon fires have gone to work.  More to the point, direct fires are more likely going to be secondary fires, like we see in the maritime environment.  They can still happen but priority is on over the horizon systems.
If terrain is transparent and unmanned gives very long reach, land warfare is likely to evolve into something more akin to naval warfare.  Now naval warfare still has littorals and complex terrain (eg islands), which we will see in land warfare with urban areas.  But DF grudge fights are likely to happen less (as we have seen in this war) as land forces push engagement ranges much further out on an illuminated battlefield.

Some utterly insane CQB fighting between a Bradley and a BTR. A little amazed this kind of close in fighting can still happen with the modern emphasis on range and the plethora of drone recon. While rare I do feel this is why having direct fire capability is still very valuable on the battlefield. 

Maybe they can trade them for the WSJ reporter, and some of the other foreign nationals the Russians are holding on transparently trumped up charges.

Commander-in-Chief of the AFU
https://t.me/osirskiy/715
 

Small update by Generalmajor der Panzerwaffe Freuding to the current situation in Ukraine. He visited the Ukraine some days before and was deeply impressed by them as they were commanding/leading the maneuver by drone overview. Captions should be good enough to understand everything.
 
 

I was unable to find a good geolocation, but the important thing about this video is that Ukrainian FPV drones are operating at whatever distance from the frontline that this very relaxed looking locomotive was parked. Some of the comments about this say it was partisans, But I don't think GUR would use up competent partisans for a target like this one. Not when there are S-400s, generals, and EW systems to go after. I think Ukraine has solved the problems with drone motherships and com relays at a large enough scale start attacking te entire Russian system at a depth of at least twenty or thirty kilometers. 
We have also seen FPV style drone killing SPGs, again that implies ten kilometers or more of reach.

Unless every one of these cars has as epic suite of spyware, and a remote controlled bomb, this is inexcusable.

Anyone still in Russia that has a passport that would let the get out is bucking for an honorable mention by the Darwin Awards.

I agree that the regime is more fragile than it seems to casual observation but those weren't oligarchs who were standing aside and letting Prigozhin make his run. They were power brokers amongst the siloviki who tacitly supported the challenge for their own purposes but were also not prepared to see someone like Prigozhin take the reins. He was a catspaw to force a renegotiation of terms between the upper edge of middle management and the CEO's office and nothing more.  
Those who were simply industrialists and/or money men have been eclipsed by those who have a foot in the intelligence world and also have broad experience running sectors of the government and/or economy. The next generation of the Patrushevs, Dyumin, etc are prime examples. Ironically, the greatest buttress of Putin's position at the moment is that they are all terrified of a proper collapse. Wagner entering Moscow could have quite easily triggered an actual popular explosion and in the end, that is the last thing any of them want. Control is all.

/Scurries off to learn about Mirage 2000's.  About all I know is there was a movie about 25 years ago with Mirages doing a long range strike into Africa, some very nice photography.
Anyone with insight want to share?

To give some background to this announcement the current training pipeline for future Ukrainian pilots is this:
1. Basic training is done in the UK on Grob Prefect T1
    (At the same time there is language training and also training in G simulators to get used to the nest step)
2. Initial fast jet training is done  in the UK on a Beechcraft Texan T1 ( a turboprop aircraft)
 
3. Advanced fast jet training is done on Armee de l'Air Alpha Jets
As neither the French or the British have F16s, there is no existing pipeline from moving from Alpha Jets to F16s.
There is, however, an existing pipeline for moving from Alpha Jets to Mirage 2000s
This, I think, indicates a longer term, more mature approach to providing capability to the Ukrainian Air Force. It's a more thought out announcement that President Macron trying to get Brownie points.
(There's a load of bollocks on socials about Mirage 2000s only being provided to launch Scalp/Storm Shadow. The Mirage 2000-5 is a lot more capable than that. It's no F35 but it's no Su 24 either) 
 

Unless every one of these cars has as epic suite of spyware, and a remote controlled bomb, this is inexcusable.