Tux

Since we are almost 1000 pages in, I was wondering if a few guys could post some links to previous posts in this thread that are:
The most important/informative The most predictive of what would or did happen Those of strategic importance  I ask because some folks have recently joined us here and may need to do some catching up. 1000 pages is A LOT of catching up to do. Please upvote if this would be useful to you. 
Thanks a bunch!
Probus

Please don't always state so indifferentiated stuff about everything Russian. I guess they won't suffer too much from hurt feelings but for me it just doesn't add anything useful to the discussion. Of course it is possible to have agreements with Russians in general. It is not like they were somehow genetically unable to. There were quite a lot in the past that weren't broken. I wouldn't trust the Putin, his cronies and quite a few others farther than I can lob a 155mm shell at them but that doesn't mean we can never try to reach an agreement with any Russian ever again - which would be a very bleak outlook indeed.
EDIT: Modified one sentence. Didn't make much sense. My bad.

Russian propaganda pearls:
23rd of June. In red circle a number of destroyed UKR artillery/mortar systems

24th of June.

3002 - 2088 = 914 artillery systems for one day!
 

This is the first time I've seen a thread with over 1 million views.  Amazing conversation, amazing and insightful contributors.  Must be the best non-professional source on the war online.

1.  Likely a combination of both to be honest. On those initial axis of attack the RA had superiority in concentrated mass in both firepower and manoeuvre, it is likely how they managed to penetrate so deeply into Ukraine in the first couple weeks.  Technically those were pretty bold and rapid advances - the one north of Sumy was over 200km long.  Problem is that Ukraine did not go all "paralyzed" and collapse like they were supposed to, they spread out and hacked the Russian LOCs to pieces.  The dirty secret is that the RA operation did not look much different than how we would have done it, so our immediate reaction is "well they did it wrong"...and not "what is wrong with 'it' in the first place?"  Russians are using arty in Donbas right now in the tradition of WW1 by the looks of it - hammer, advance by inches and repeat.  We are all focused on Severodonetsk but in all that open rolling terrain south and west of Izyum, and up from Poposna the Russians also stalled, likely due to the UA light infantry-arty-ISR system, which massed artillery cannot seem to solve for either.
3.   Now that is a solid point, Ukraine had a couple hundred kms to trade and stretch out RA forces, for a smaller nation things like swarming will still work but you would need to really look at pre-emptive strategies and hitting a massing force while it is forming up.  Or take mass integrated precision fires to a whole new level at the front end.
4.  As per point #1, I agree, the RA did actually employ manoeuvre in the opening phase of this war...and it did not really work.  At least not enough to achieve their over all strategic objectives.  They took some ground and then stalled and had to fall back as focused attrition and imposed friction took its toll.  Now if they had really upscaled, say 1 million men and applied the same game plan it may have worked - they still would have taken significant casualties but they would likely have had enough "oomph" to at least go with the "sieging cities" option.  
The implications here are not small.  Everywhere-ISR with resilient communications systems, low cost small smart munitions with ridiculous ranges and lethality, and unmanned systems might very well mean that the fast-light-short-decisive wars we have been chasing for over 30 years by embracing manoeuvre warfare might be a pipe dream.  I mean it looked like a great idea, smaller but highly professional militaries are cheaper than massive ones even if they have more expensive kit.  Low impact on society as you do not need to conscript anyone.  Nice clean decisive wars where we assume our opponents will play freeze-tag and surrender once we take their capital (which they never do).
Instead we got very long unwinnable insurgencies or in a near-peer environment whatever this thing is turning into.  It is far too soon to be making bold corrections; however, there are enough question marks around this thing to at least force us to revisit our western way of war at a fundamental assumptions level. 

The only takeaway lesson from this war I am drawing is - nothing is working like it was supposed to.  Airpower, cyber, armor/mech, and yes, artillery have not performed anywhere near what we thought going into this war.  No matter how hard we try and tie reality into knots to explain it, we likely will not know why for some time...and even then we will likely ignore it if history is any indication. 
Worse, I am hearing this is in military circles and moves to tie this to military procurement as politicians scramble to "spend more" in order to demonstrate collective resolve.  While military services are using this war as justification for stuff they have been wanting to buy for years without actually looking at what is happening on the ground.
Let's take artillery - "the king of battle" (talk about 'presents well'), no it has not been the ruling monarch in this war.  It has been the "king of attrition" but it has not been decisive in the least.  If massed artillery fires were still decisive the Russians would have taken Kyiv by now, let alone this small rump in the Donbas.  If "more guns" was the solution then Russia would have already taken their operational objectives instead of this war-by-inches bleeding out.  The one instance we did see decisive use of artillery was in the first phase of this war by the Ukrainians, and that wasn't any of that sexy western stuff.  It was highly integrated and linked to a superior UA C4ISR/information system so that the smaller artillery was hitting the right targets to cause the most stress to the Russian system - decisive attrition has been the "king of battle" if anything has been in this war so far, and even that is weird because we were supposed to be seeing the dominance of manoeuvre a la Gulf War.
Back to procurement; we are already hearing services drooling over "investment" in "new capabilities" we have had since WW2 and using this was as "proof".  Right now the only "proof" I have seen is for: unmanned like crazy including all forms of next gen ATGM/MANPAD systems (NLOS, self-loitering etc), dispersed light infantry that one can generate from reservists very quickly,  resilient and pervasive battlefield communications systems that include crowdsourcing, new forms of logistical systems that look more like Amazon than what we have, C4ISR that includes space-based assets to tie it all together rapidly.  And all that will buy you is an ability for large scale defence-thru-denial that may force an opponent's system to collapse under its own weight.  We have no idea what works for offensive operations because neither side has been able to do it yet.
"Tanks, guns, IFVs, F-35" are what are being pitched right now and that is billions of dollars into tools that Ukraine did not employ decisively to defeat the RA, but they are the capabilities that Russia invested heavily in, brought to this war, and are now scattered all over the Ukrainian countryside. 
One thing I am seeing out of all this is "we have to understand what 'fighting smarter' really means".  And it does not appear to be more expensive singular platform centric-warfare.  This is like France '40 - the French had more, better tanks but they had not created a smarter integrated tank-system - the Germans did (often in spite of themselves).  All domain systems integration, while denying the same to your opponent may be the future "king of battle" [when you really think about it, maybe it always has been] but again we have only see it work decisively on the defensive, so the jury is still out. 
I am hoping that the UA is employing this whole Severodonetsk thing as an attritional honeypot to bleed the Russians white in order to open up options for some old-school operational manoeuvre in Phase 3 of this thing.  My guess is this may occur in the western side of this theatre around Kherson-Melitopol as the Russians over-commit more and more to this baffling fight in the Donbas - "Lure your enemy onto the roof, then take away the ladder."
 

Apologies for releasing the Trump here.

This is a lie. You know the level of knowledge about Ukraine present here.  Can’t believe you would try and trot this out in front of this crowd. Since everything else is just Fox News talking points also, I doubt there is any reason to address this in detail, but broadly:
-Biden worked to end corruption in Ukraine, carrying out the policy of the US and our European partners, including putting pressure on Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who WAS NOT actively pursuing an investigation of Burisma (which concerned issues predating Hunter Biden’s term on the Burisma, and so COULD NOT have been an investigation of H. Biden).
-Trump tried to extort a fake investigation of H. Biden by Ukraine for purely domestic US political purposes by threatening to withhold military aid, in direct contravention of US foreign policy.
If you don’t think the latter display of complete contempt for Ukraine on the part of the US didn’t play into Russia’s plans in Ukraine (which did not start out of the blue in Nov 2020), then I don’t know what to say.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/16/trump-administration-broke-law-in-withholding-ukraine-aid.html
I'm sorry but that's an absurd statement. Russia didn't decide to invade because Biden was weak kneed on Ukraine. In fact, Biden has been seen as a hawk in DC on the topic since at least 2008 or so. Russia invaded because before his administration Putin had successfully out maneuvered Bush and Obama while Trump was fairly actively his acolyte. The good times were over, American military aid was about to ramp up and the Ukrainian government was no longer as amenable to pressure. In short, Ukraine was about to become much harder to swallow up (if not as easy as the FSB imagined).
 

I'm sorry, as a citizen of EU I refuse to go through another decade of economic misery as it happened when the banks failed and people had to bear the weight. We are not responsible for the war in Ukraine. Everyone was dealing with Russia, not only Europe. Even Trump, was apparently involved in business with Russians. Does that make him an American Berlusconi? Should all American citizens pay the price? Also Europe has paid the aftermath of wars that didn't participate in Middle East, has bear the weight of a huge refugee crisis, has suffered hundred of victims from ISIS terror attacks on its soil and Europe has to pay again? I don't think it's fair and we should keep banging our heads on the wall as Aragorn says. 

Managed to watch Girkin/Kvatchkov video from Murz rant. I am putting my notes here. Sorry for dumping it like this and also for mistakes in translation. But I am tired listening them and taking notes. Unfortunatly I might not be able to do anything tomorrow or during the weekend. But I do not want to leave it till Monday. So, here it is. 
Disclaimer - take it with grain of salt. These guys are not like official 100% correct source. They might lie. They might be mistaken. I might got something wrong as well.
I also cut political takes and anything I saw as unimportant.
The most important - Ru offensive is already defeated they just kipping it going to fix UKR forces, keep initiative and for political show. UKR cannot penetrate deep and collapse RU defense due to RU aviation. RU aviation is only thing that keeps UKR from fast break outs (implying unlike defensive AA which is excellent, UKR mobile AA are not as good or they are lacking them or there is a problem). 
UKR morale is not as low as it might be seen from news with TD complaints. Cases of TD complaints are too few compared to the overall forces involved. Mostly because they were at the tipping spear of RU offensive and got hit hard by RU arty. UKR TD is equipped much better than Mobiks(mobilized)  of LDNR forces.
At Kharkiv UKR collapsed Luhansk Mobiks pushed till the border but now regular RU forces very slowly are pushing UKR back.
UKR have really defeated formations (implying TD but maybe not) but too few of them and they will be rotated out of frontline and restored. Nothing out of the ordinary for big war.
Some RU divisions have up 60% of refuseniks, especially from Kavkaz.
Legal wise RU refusniks and even deserters are very difficult to prosecute without full war mobilization.
Girking confessed during 2014 he took part in some "War time" trials which resulted in executions. They executed their own troops who committed serious crimes, marauders, and enemy war criminals [whatever that means].
Fuming UKR are more competent in maintaining Army moral and dealing with deserters.
Claiming there is high chance that captured British nationals will get amnesty or will be exchanged.
They are believing foreign nationals are coming for safari to hunt Russians.
Currently UKR are mostly using French guns (implying for hitting Donetsk area) [probably due to a longer-range RU has difficulty dealing with].
All RU 152mm Msta guns are at main front (implying Severodonetsk). So they have difficulty dealing with long range UKR guns in Donetsk area.
Too few satellites for recon.
RU cannot provide air recon for CB due to lack of drones (implying Orlan). Looks like he is avoiding mentioning aircraft for some reason, may be because it shameful to admit that VVS failure as well.  
Mavic Drone cannot deal with arty for CB due to short range.
Donetsk, Makeivka, Gorlovka and other cannot be unprotected CB wise (implying lack long range arty and drones in the area).
RU forces cannot destroy UKR group in Donbas without major strategic reserves (implying currently there is none).
Reserves are being prepared. But it will not be enough. They can only balance out UKR existing forces. 
LDNR cannot provide an additional 20 regiments of light infantry (capable of guard duty behind lines). Not sure what he means about additional - either he means RU is building force of 20 regiments and LDNR cannot match that or LDNR in the past provided 20 regiments and cannot provide any more. Only compensate losses.
There is no more LDNR regular infantry. All Mobiks (mobilized)
LDNR civilians morale - dissatisfaction is rising but it is holding because everybody know UKR are going to kill them. [Good example how Russian pressure cooker holds internal pressure for a longer period then western country with bat**** crazy propaganda]
RU border regions are constantly attacked/shelled. Recon raids are becoming more common. Their morale is much lower. [RU regions less susceptible to RU propaganda]
LDNR will rebel but only after RU territory rebel first.
RU pilots report that flying lower than 2 km is a death sentence. Especially during the second run. That's why they have difficulty in using certain bombs like Vacuum bombs.
Any RU aircraft is too valuable as only aviation can deal with UKR mechanized attacks in certain areas. UKR attack on Dayd Brode (Herson) was stopped with heavy losses by RU aviation.
So, RU cannot bomb freely - too much of tactical AA which is sometimes superior to RU.
UKR fortifications (implying east region) are too numerous and deep. They have sometimes three level trenches (I do not know what it is)
Only in few areas there is smell of RU Aviation (including Helicopters)
No UKR aviation (As I understood UKR aviation is not hitting RU frontline at least at east region)
Heavy losses in Davidov Brody due to UKR forces getting out of AA umbrella. It was very dangerous break out.
 
 

I'd argue that there is also a 100% rational principle at stake here. Continuing the war until Ukraine has regained, at a minimum, all of its pre-Feb 24 territory (preferably all of its pre-2014 territory) may prolong the current war and postpone peace in the short term. But I feel it is important for assuring peace in the long term. Russia cannot be allowed to gain anything from this war, or even be able to credibly claim that it has gained anything. The message not only to Russia, but also to all future potential aggressors, should be aggression does not pay.

I am not beating "old" Europeans. I am not saying you are bad guys who help Putin. On the contrary I am saying you are good guys. And this is the core of your problem. Being away from Russia you have no relevant experience/knowledge. As result you apply your good guy mentality to a problem that requires exactly the opposite approach.
Your approach works with 99% of the problems. And that is great! Unfortunately, it does not work with 1 problem we face now. And that is why Pan-European Alliance will not work. Some problems require a different mentality. 
You are doing great with help of Ukraine. You are valuable Allies of Ukraine. Please forgive Ukrainians their anger - they are in the mortal struggle now. They are too emotional right now. We are all too emotional right now. 
So, if you think that I offended you i apologize profusely.

Can we please stop this? I'm seriously tired of reading every few pages how we mollycoddled, money-grubbing "old" europeans have no idea and want to happily sacrifice a few of the wise and strong eastern european countries (who don't need us anyway because they are now allied with the invincible USA) so we can finally go back to trading with Russia in order to let the party continue.
Very much exaggerated on purpose. As I already said here, several times, this helps noone. I am guilty of having discussed politics here more than once but let's keep it civil, shall we?
 

Oh.
I looked only at the Steam version.
Ok, I have a purchase to make.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I really don't think it's good to whitewash our past. We probably shouldn't pretend that the British Empire were the good guys (you don't conquer a quarter of the globe by being nice). On the other hand, it isn't relevant to any discussion of who the good guys are today. No reasonable person should have any concern that the British will get up to their old habits.

Can we please leave personal things out of this discussion? It doesn't help and that road is a slippery one.

I've just passed to this page and read THIS. Guys, I though this was just a joke, but now my heart is melted down and I can't reject this gift. Though, I feel myself awkward... and also huge gratitude to all of you and Kinophile personally for idea     

A true classic, Life of Brian.
I have difficulties with most of what was said earlier about the fiasco otherwise known as Brexit, but as this is not a thread about Brexit I'll keep them to myself.

A reminder that when Turkey joined NATO along with Greece in February 1952, it had free-and-fair elections with a two party system, an independent judiciary, and a GDP close to that of Italy. The only criterion by which Greece would be allowed to join and Turkey refused would be declaring membership open solely to Christian nations.

Thanks ) Just became some more of work, my wife turned back and often occupies PC because her work, also it's hard to live three months 24/7 as war news translator, so I took small vacations 

Eh, I blame the programme manager - he's the one responsible for making SURE discrete elements of the project interact properly. Mind you, no self respecting engineer would be using non-metric in the first place, so theres that.

In fact capturing the enemy is even better than killing them (although the threat of killing them is usually necessary to capture them, which is why there will never be a war in which enemy casualties are 100% POW and 0% KIA). You get all the same benefits of killing them (one killed or one captured are both a permanent reduction of the enemy's strength by one soldier) plus a few other benefits, such as the potential for intelligence, and the fact that surrendering can be a contagious behavior that can encourage others to surrender. If you kill soldiers who are trying to surrender you discourage other soldiers from surrendering and potentially you will make the enemy fight harder.

I don't think anyone "deserves" to die (frankly I'm not sure anyone "deserves" anything in any rigorously determinable sense, except in that what is "deserved" can be a useful social construct for rewarding/punishing desirable/undesirable behaviors). Certainly I think that dishing out death based on what is "deserved" is a slippery slope (a position I would like to think I would maintain even if I was given custody of Hitler, but I'll make no promises to any time travelers out there). However, if they "need" to die in order to get the Russian army to leave Ukraine, then so be it.
Frankly I don't care if they die, desert, or surrender. But I want very badly for a critical mass of Russian soldiers to do one of those three things.

I haven't seen any content posted by Haiduk lately, I hope he is doing OK. His updates were most enlightening.