Baneman

I'll be in Chiba Monday or Tuesday.
I'm very excited to find out if the sky above the port is the color of television, tuned to a dead channel. 

These recent videos of Russian armoured assaults are insane ! 🤯
I mean, I ( and almost everyone on this forum ) would be absolutely messing myself with worry if I even tried that in CM in a WW2 context. Are the Russian generals on drugs ?
Maybe it's just because I tend to be very logical, but I cannot wrap my head around this kind of behaviour after 2 (two !) years of seeing this sort of thing get smashed.

These recent videos of Russian armoured assaults are insane ! 🤯
I mean, I ( and almost everyone on this forum ) would be absolutely messing myself with worry if I even tried that in CM in a WW2 context. Are the Russian generals on drugs ?
Maybe it's just because I tend to be very logical, but I cannot wrap my head around this kind of behaviour after 2 (two !) years of seeing this sort of thing get smashed.

These recent videos of Russian armoured assaults are insane ! 🤯
I mean, I ( and almost everyone on this forum ) would be absolutely messing myself with worry if I even tried that in CM in a WW2 context. Are the Russian generals on drugs ?
Maybe it's just because I tend to be very logical, but I cannot wrap my head around this kind of behaviour after 2 (two !) years of seeing this sort of thing get smashed.

So, sfhand - Steve asked some questions and you waved them away. Perhaps you would clarify - for example. for Steve's Point 
The Putin regime is a brutal dictatorship that has increasingly less tolerance for anything that questions its legitimacy
And you decided the answer was 
1.partially true partially false
Now I'd love to hear what part of the Putin regime is tolerant or not a brutal dictatorship  ? Because if the statement is partially false, then there must be some tolerance shown. I ( we here ) have not seen any, but perhaps you have access to info we do not ?
Russia unilaterally launched a war against Ukraine, unprovoked and without any rational justification.
Again, you go half half
4.partially true partially false in part depending on what one considers a provocation (not universal; see individuals per inverse Plato's Republic) and what one considers violations of treaties and ethnic cleansing
Apparently you think that Russia DID have some provocation, could you state what you believe it is ? Otherwise you're just throwing in "partially false" to try and justify the war somehow.
What treaties are you referring to ? And ethnic cleansing ?
You imply these are involved somehow, but again, fail to tell us what/how they inform your opinion.
So c'mon, this forum is a pretty vigorous place for peer review - give us some facts/info to back up your position - everyone else here has.

You know, you're right. This just like the McCarthy hearings. 
Do we not, at long last gentlemen, have any sense of decency?

Well, I don't have a ban stick and you didn't answer my queries either.
Barely even queries, more like requests for elaboration. I'd like to think I was polite about it.
It's back on page 3361 if you care to have a go.

See kids, this is the problem with rejecting the "reality based community". You just become a red pilled font of balderdash.

Well, I don't have a ban stick and you didn't answer my queries either.
Barely even queries, more like requests for elaboration. I'd like to think I was polite about it.
It's back on page 3361 if you care to have a go.

Putin's invasion plans were formulated on Hunter Biden's laptop.  They were created while he and George Soros were vacationing at Jeffery Epstein's place at the same time that Hilary Clinton was discussing a marketing plan with Epstein to use a Pizza place as a front for child trafficking.  I seem to remember this was close to the same time Jewish Space lasers were lighting up California forests because we hadn't properly raked them like they do in Finland.  I remember all this because right about then I was sticking light bulbs up my anus to kill Covid.
See it all makes sense now right?

Maybe someone in the oil industry can explain it to me as I don't understand why the US would care about Russian oil exports. The US is a net exporter so doesn't less oil from Russia mean more money/profit for US big oil? More money for US big oil means more money for US politicians, so why would there be US outrage against strikes on Russian oil infrastructure? The only reason I can see is if Russian oil is financing US politicians to a greater degree than the US oil is, maybe that is it? Wouldn't the main consumers of Russian oil be the biggest ones to throw a fit? Like China and India? 

Although they then have to admit/prove that it's Ukrainian and not a "smoking accident".
Surely nets will simply drive the USV's to have a terminal underwater phase ?
The classic is the Japanese Midway wargames where the Opposing force hid their carriers nearby ( IIRC it was even almost exactly where irl the American carriers were positioned ) and thrashed the attacking force.
That was deemed impossible, the opfor guys were chastised and it was replayed for the Japanese "win".
And then in reality ... 🤪

Although they then have to admit/prove that it's Ukrainian and not a "smoking accident".
Surely nets will simply drive the USV's to have a terminal underwater phase ?
The classic is the Japanese Midway wargames where the Opposing force hid their carriers nearby ( IIRC it was even almost exactly where irl the American carriers were positioned ) and thrashed the attacking force.
That was deemed impossible, the opfor guys were chastised and it was replayed for the Japanese "win".
And then in reality ... 🤪

Although they then have to admit/prove that it's Ukrainian and not a "smoking accident".
Surely nets will simply drive the USV's to have a terminal underwater phase ?
The classic is the Japanese Midway wargames where the Opposing force hid their carriers nearby ( IIRC it was even almost exactly where irl the American carriers were positioned ) and thrashed the attacking force.
That was deemed impossible, the opfor guys were chastised and it was replayed for the Japanese "win".
And then in reality ... 🤪

I believe you when you say you're from the UK beacuse you have no idea how the EU works

do you recall at all what happened in Bucha?  I mean FFS what exactly do you think is gonna happen with negotiations with Russia?  JFC people have such poor memories or just don't give a rat's a55 for reality when they have an agenda.

Seriously and @squatter can look here too.  For anyone advocating Ukraine pursuing peace negotiations or suing for peace - easy to say but no one in this camp has provided a coherent theory of what that would look like right now.
Let’s say “Ok, you guys are right. Ukraine is out of options here. There are no viable way for Ukraine to continue to prosecute this war.”  Ok, so what?  What would peace negotiations look like?  How exactly do you guys see these “peace negotiations” happening.  Every time I ask this question I get some hand waving but no one has yet to unpack just how any peace negotiations could end up in anything but weakened western influence and a more vulnerable Ukraine that Russia is going to exploit.  What peace negotiation, that Russia is going to accept - while, as we are continually reminded, Russia is still capable of waging offensives to take ground?  What possible leverage does the west or Ukraine have in guaranteeing Ukrainian independence and security.  Is Russia going to offer reparations?  How about war crimes prosecution?  Is Russia going to give up an inch of ground it has taken?  Are they going to push for recognition of Crimea and Donbas as Russian provinces.
This is what is so disingenuous about this line of advocacy - at best it is delusional liberal left “let’s give peace a chance”.  At worst is it far right BS designed to program failure into this entire war so that their presidential candidate can be “right all along”.  In both cases the idea of peace negotiations right now is an empty coffin where actual ideas on this war go to die.  We may very well need a negotiated end-state in this war, but suing for peace now, while on the back foot is going to embolden Putin and his regime…and is exactly what they are looking for in order to promote themselves “Look we brought them all to their knees”.
But let’s open the floor.  Please walk us through what a peace process would look like right now.  Let’s stop sideline heckling on won’t work and tell us what you think will work.

Oh good, you are back.  So I posted links to two estimates of RA force lay down south of Kherson.  From OS we have at least a decent idea that there is roughly a division down there.  I then did a force to space analysis that would show roughly 100 RA troops per km.  That is roughly 1/3 of the average troops density elsewhere and much less than RA offensive concentrations.  But, again, you simply ignore it.
I am not sure what a discussion in Kherson sector has to do with the larger strategic force comparison; however the argument was never that the “RUS are outnumbered and outgunned in Ukraine”, it was: the RA is thin at Kherson and Ukraine has on opportunity to exploit that.
Well at the CFC we also do not assume the enemy is “superior in every way so every option is too hard…so let’s just quit” either.  I have no doubt the RA has hard points along that obstacle but they do not have enough forces to create an effective “wall”, they have likely no depth and they definitely do not have air superiority.  I mean, seriously, how much more do you need?
So first off “difficult” does not automatically translate into “impossible” - that is not a good military rule of thumb.  So how “beleaguered” is that force at Krynky?  How much has it cost the UA to hold that bridgehead.  How hard have been the RA c-attacks.  You basically “have seen pictures of tired Ukrainian Marines” and translate that into “impossible mission”.  So who is demonstrating bias here, in order to fit a foregone conclusion?  Krynky shows that a small light force one the other side of the Dnipro can be sustained and resist RA attempts to push them out.  It demonstrates that the RA do not have decisive force at Krynky and I suspect the bridgehead is acting as a patrolling base.  The fact that they have held on for months reinforces this deduction.
Now the real question is, can the UA do 6-10 Krynkys?  Upscaling is a completely different issue.  It depends on availability of trained troops, water crossing equipment, stores and intelligence.  It is a complete complex operation.  Is it guaranteed?  Absolutely not - war is not a menu with items you can simply return to the kitchen because you don’t like them - this will be a very hard and dangerous operation.  However, it is 1) possible and plausible and  2) likely one of the better operational offensive options on the table.  You appear to write off any offensive operation for your own reasons, however, here is one professional military analysts who is telling you that there is an option space here given the proper resources.  The risks are high, however, the payoff may be high enough to warrant the risk.  Further the other options are all pretty much worse unless the UA has solved for minefields in this war.
(This is your queue to get huffy again and argue with the kitchen btw)
Your state position has been, and is (unless you wish to retract) - “Ukraine is out of options and as such we should be pursuing peace negotiations.”  If you can provide a single post where you do not reinforce this central premise then I think we can re-assess your position.  You have worked incredibly hard to remove the southern light operational option - to the point that Steve also called you out for ignoring evidence being presented in favour of your underlying position.  You have also dismissed any and all other options - again to reinforce your position.  You have side-stepped historical references as “out of date”, you have side-stepped force-space analysis and you have downplayed Ukrainian successes.  
Now, you are correct.  This could all be quite innocent and you do not have a conscious ulterior motive.  But now you might want to take a look at your own biases because you are definitely projecting a sub-conscious motive here.  You can get all huffy and demand to see the manager, but I still smell and suspect you of political motivations that align with other posters who have come through here who employ pretty much the exact same MO on the discussion of future Ukrainian military success - ignore or downplay any analysis or assessment that would give Ukraine any chance of success; over subscribe Russian capabilities and capacity: land back at “Ukraine is done…we must sue for peace”.
No argument on the transformative impact ISR has had on the battlefield.  And no one is saying a water crossing operation is going to be easy.  Like minefields, it will require pre-conditions which include a level of c-ISR.  However, we have a proof of concept that it can be done, which is a helluva lot more than we have with respect to minefields and RA forces elsewhere.  That is one large obstacle to try and cover in detail - 85-100kms.  And the UA has freedom of movement along most of that obstacle (I.e. unlike a minefield they can cross at multiple locations).  So what?  Well if one can keep the logistical demand low, one could sustain light operations through over the water and air resupply (see: heavy drones)…you know, like in other times in history.
A light force water crossing is damned hard and comes with significant risk, no getting past that.  However, compared to other options it may be the best of the bunch.  And it may very well work…and by “work” I mean draw RA forces away from other sectors to deal with it, which may open up other opportunities.
As to “Russian stooge” and “f#cking idiot”…you realize you are the only one to make these statements in this debate?  I still suspect you of ulterior motives but of course that will need proof otherwise.  No, I suspect you are a guy who is entirely enamoured in your own opinion and is always pushing to be the smartest guy in the room.  Now which rooms?  In the end, I really do not care.
Now who is throwing around “you are all f#cking idiots and Pro-Ukrainian bots”?  So if your purpose was to highlight how challenging future offensive operations will be for the UA…well, ok, got it. Contribution noted.  But it really appears you are working very hard to convince everyone that Ukraine has no offensive options left, and its defensive ones are nearly as hopeless…and therefore Ukraine should “sue for peace”.  
This will have been at least the 2nd, possible 3rd time someone has come out of the woodwork after Adiivka to push this perspective.  Your approach of 1) being entirely in love with your own opinion and 2) ignoring any and all evidence or counter analysis, and 3) becoming very offended when called out, matches those previous poster profiles.  Could all be innocent coincidence and you honestly believe this is the situation despite also hoping for a better outcome, but I remain suspicious.
Why?  Because like those other posters, you are not promoting actual discourse.  You are pushing a single position without room for anything else.  I am more than willing to admit a water crossing operation south of Kherson may very well fail, it is no guaranteed success.  I am also very willing to publicly admit that Ukraine is definitely facing some tough decisions this year.  I do not believe we are at the “beg Russia for peace” stage though and see still possible opportunities but windows may be closing.  You on the other hand dismiss any and all ideas that run counter to your position.  You are preaching, not discussing.  Could be just who you are, but you picked a really crappy time to come out and self-actualize.

Heh, well, than I need to buy one, albiet I like dark beer )

It is an astonishingly strong conceit that autocracies are somehow better at war than more liberal states. Even looking at *this* war...Russia's autocracy has screwed up in every conceivable way, taken grossly disproportionate losses and cannot regain its earlier standing *even if it prevails* in Ukraine. It has inflicted on itself a strategic, economic and demographic disaster.   

I have overcome my uncomfortableness with getting off the couch and am going to get some food.

I miss when we used to take the time to have individual country bashing days. This latest 'West Bashing Day' trend is just slapdash.

This is a solid point, except for the international recognition part.  That damned land bridge is not good news at all but I do not think it is big enough to give Russia “a win”.  International recognition will never come anymore than it did for Crimea.  If it does ever happen it means the western rules based order is dead and we are in the opening chapters of Chung Ko.  Then best strategy, short of pulling Ukraine into NATO is to Korean Peninsula this thing.  I multi-lateral security treaties that see western troops on the ground in Ukraine.  This effectively will create a deterrence by denial situation for Russia in do-overing this war in a decade…assuming Russia is capable of that in a decade.
Do not get me wrong it would have been far better if Ukraine had taken that corridor back - and I do not think that ship has sailed yet but it is getting further away.  But I think Steve’s point is that Russia can claim victory if this thing stops right now but the reality is very different.  All war is negotiation and we may finally be at a point where both sides can come to terms with how things are…or maybe not, I honestly do not know.

Hate to break it to you but I live in probably the most Muslim area of London, about 1km from the biggest mosque in the country and my neighbours are pretty chilled people. The area has a lot of bars and Muslim shopkeepers will happily sell me pork and beer.
Violent islamic nutcases apparently exist but I am more worried about the far right "reaction" than Muslims just living a different lifestyle to me. 

I'm not quite dead yet... I feeeel happy!!