Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

fireship4

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    493

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by fireship4

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

     

    14 hours ago, FancyCat said:

    A frozen front line without a ceasefire is not a win for Ukraine or the West. A situation that presumably allows Russia to missile strike and drone attack into Ukraine's cities is one that will result in Ukraine's slow bleed out thru civilian morale collapse. I assume that a situation without ceasefire being agreed means ukraine is unable to threaten Russia with enough retaliation to bring Russia away from contently lobbing missiles. Mind you pre-2022 ceasefire and negotiations were in much different contexts than today. We have no idea what Russia's breaking point to begin negotiations to formalize a freeze is and not a form of surrender or Western loss.

    It is therefore essential to define win in terms of a maximal, seeking quick as possible goal, in order to best pressure Russia towards peace, to best prep western governments to aspire and support Ukraine with maximum aid and long term awareness of potential Russian renewal. (Things like arguing over ammo procurement should have never become a issue to the result now where the West looks weak as hell as Russia makes gains and can argue it can make strategic gains eventually, if our goal is to stop the war, anything that allows Russia to convince itself it can win is a failure)(lack of urgency is a failure)

    The slow drip of aid, the reactive position of the West to Russia, is a failure. At every step, Russia has escalated, has increased its capabilities, has continued to bet that it can exhaust the West. Instead of providing offramps, Russia sees it as Western weakness to take advantage of.

    The fear of Russian collapse, which characterized many foreign policy doves including Jake Sullivan in the Biden administration has resulted in the measures Russia has taken advantage of. It's necessary to no longer concern with Russian collapse (which I don't think has ever been a possibility in hindsight, if you forgot, at every step of escalation Russia has sought to warn of Russian collapse (I include nuclear weapons use as a collapse scenario, as only a hard pressed Russia would want to open Pandora's box) and right now it looks like Russia was stalling (obviously). If anything we need, the West needs to concern itself with Ukrainian collapse and to operate accordingly to prevent it. Accordingly, we must signal to Russia that it's maximal goal is impossible. Certainly the present situation indicates Russia still looks for its maximal goal. Holding up aid for months is certainly not helping the mindset of a dictator who started the full scale invasion in the delusion it would succeed quickly and painlessly.

    What does disregarding Russia's potential collapse mean in reality? Well for one thing, the restrictions on Western weapons use in Russia, Germany acting oh so scared of hurting Russian land with a missile as cluster munitions land in Odesa and France being exceedingly selfish procuring ammo are just some behaviors that Putin may be able to take solace in.

     

    14 hours ago, FancyCat said:

    As for why espouse the rhetoric of "total victory" by the West, well for one thing, aside from that brief stalling period, Russian peace demands and signalling has been maximal. No reason for the West to concede ground. As far as I'm aware of, we have terms from Russia being: the removal of the current Ukrainian government, the annexation of 4 regions into Russia, the blocking of Ukraine into NATO or EU, the demobilization of the Ukrainian military, the formalization of Russian sovereignty over Crimea. At least. There's that drunken idiot thinking of Odesa. Idiot or not, Russian rhetoric remains maximal.

    There is no reason to speak rhetorically of anything less than the restoration of full Ukrainian territorial sovereignty over its 1991 borders and the intent of Western aid to support such goals. There is no reason to speak cautiously regarding Western weapons being used inside Russia as they end UN arms embargoes on North Korea and Iran and fire from Russia into all of Ukraine.

    No reason to be cautious in rhetoric as Russian jamming affects the Eastern flank of NATO.

     

    12 hours ago, The_Capt said:

    So this post and the one above it are what we like to call “losing the bubble”.  You have let your passion for Ukraine cloud objective strategic thinking to the point that you are proposing a denial of reality to insert one of your own that matches that passion.  In blunt terms, if you were on my staff I would be thinking you need a vacation and maybe a posting away for awhile.

    1.  We cannot simply discount/avoid/wave away the risks of a full on Russian political and social collapse.  First off it is not “impossible” or even improbable given we have a rigid autocratic political mechanism that has been under significant strain for some time now.  Russia has collapsed in the past (twice in the past century and a bit) and can do so again.  

    2.  The consequences of a Russian collapse cannot simply be waived away either.  At best we get a stable regime quickly grabbing power so that the centralized control apparatus stays in place.  That regime will need to 1) have clean enough hands to do an honest deal with, and 2) be supportive in stopping this war.  That is a tall order. Follow on scenarios of a Russian collapse and its impacts get worse from there and we have gone into them many times.  You are essentially so gripped with the Ukrainian cause that you have simply stated “ignore them” with neither proof or logic on why to do so beyond “well it hasn’t happened yet, so it will never happen”.

    3.  By your metrics Ukrainian security is not guaranteed outside of a full Russian collapse and regime change.  Nothing would stop Russia from lobbing missiles even if it was forced back to 2014 lines.  So we are back to “we need a full Russian collapse to ‘win’ but ignore the consequences of that collapse because = ‘love Ukraine’.” That makes no sense nor does it address the scenarios where a collapsed Russia poses as greater risk to Ukraine than what they are dealing with now. 

    4.  There are plenty examples of frozen conflict where an enduring peace and security were guaranteed: Korea, Cyprus and Former Yugoslavia, to name a few.  Like Israel right now, there is always risk of reemergence of warfare but we can manage that.  So immediately writing off any and all other peace scenarios is not only extremist narrative, it is dangerously reductive thinking.  This is not how high levels of diplomacy, defence and security or economics think about the world, it is how college students on a campus do.

    5.  Your position and thesis essentially start with a conclusion and then build a logic model theory of success that only supports that conclusion.  Ukraine must have total victory, all other outcomes are defeats.  Further the West must support Ukraine in this venture to the point that it will risk the total political and social collapse of a nuclear power.  We are to sidestep all that risk for Ukraine.  What happens if we get to 2014 lines and Russia does not quit?  Do we need to go into Russia proper?  This nearly happened in Korea/China in 1950, this was how MacArther talked himself into nuclear weapons and a massive Chinese reaction.

    6. We all support Ukraine and want a victory here.  But..and you really need to sit down and think about this…Ukraine is damned important, but it is not that important.  We are not going to start WW3 over Ukraine - even as we skirt around it.  We would be talking hundreds of millions of deaths, even if the thing stayed conventional.  We have 8 billion people on this planet and keeping them all alive takes a lot of energy and resources.  We built a highly complex and integrated system to keep the whole dance going.  One war breaks out between Ukraine and Russia and we already have people starving to death in Africa. Imagine a full on conflagration that drags in NATO. Iran and possibly China.  I am sorry but we could easily go with plan A, which was likely the plan on 24 Feb 22: continue to support Ukrainian resistance, fall back to NATO lines, drop a new Iron Curtain, and fund the hell out of NATO - in fact there are likely big winners in this scenario who know it.  We won the First Cold War, we can take our chances on a Second.

    So, no, total 2014 lines are not the only victory in this war by a long shot.  In fact those territorial lines might not even mean victory if they were attainable.  We are very likely looking at a stop line, like in 2014, somewhere in the middle.  Then we will get some sort of shaky ceasefire that we will need to exploit, quickly.  We need to set the conditions to strategically deny Ukraine from Russia.  We know Russia can be deterred, this is why we do not have deep strikes into Poland happening.  We will need to move that deterrence line.  We will likely have to pound Russia until it drops its ridiculous negotiating position and we can land on something more reasonable.  Whether that will take a full on collapse is unknown, we can only hope if it does that we are looking at a soft collapse of political position and not social controls within Russia.

    Finally, framing the war the way you have supports Russia.  You are making this war nearly unwinnable via these maximalist rhetoric.  As such, a reader of this thread could easily walk away agreeing with you but arriving at a very different conclusion - unwinnable war = GTFO, because we have already seen this movie twice in the last 20 years.  Which is exactly what Russia wants.

    You have narrowed down the acceptable narrative only to those ardent extremist viewpoints that agree with you.  By leaving no middle ground you violate a core component of war: negotiation.  There is no negotiation in your position and that immediately sets off warning bells.  We hear this everyday now coming from all sorts of corners over so many issues.  I vehemently disagree with your analysis, narrative and conclusions based on this fact alone.

     

    FancyCat, edited for concision:

    • A drawn-out war is bad for Ukraine.
    • We don't know what might bring Russia to ceasefire negotiations.
    • The best way to bring them to the table is to fight to win the war.
    • Russia will keep the war going if it is to their advantage.
    • The west is not fighting to win, Russia is taking advantage of Western lack of commitment.
    • Russia is using Western fears of Russian collapse and nuclear war to it's advantage, actively promoting such a narrative for it's benefit rather than because it is a realistic one.
    • Russia seems to be pursuing maximal goals.  The west must signal that these cannot be achieved.
    • Why should the west make concessions as Russia does not.  Russia does not offer a negotiation, rather demands surrender, disarmament and fomalisation of annexed land

     

    The_Capt, edited for concision:

    Preamble: You are ignoring reality. The best becomes the enemy of the good. We have a phrase for that in Army.

    1. The Russian regime might collapse.
    2. This would be a risk.
    3. You think the only way to win is for the Russia to collapse.
    4. Russia doesn't need to collapse for there to be peace.
    5. You think Ukraine must have total victory and anything else is defeat.  This is holding you back.
    6. (6.1) WW3 would be bad, Ukraine is not worth that.  War is costly.  We can simultaniously support Ukrainian resistance and pull back to a new iron curtain behind which could sit a well funded NATO.
    7. (6.2) Maximal goals are not the only form of victory. We are looking at a ceasefire scenario with half of Ukraine in Russian hands.
    8. (6.3) We must fight to achieve a better negotiating position, this might require Russia to collapse.
    9. (6.4) Your argument helps the enemy, by making the war unwinnable, and might encourage people to give up support if it does not achieve total vicory.  This is what Russia wants.

     

    I feel simply summarising the main points of the exchange as I have here should suffice as a critique.  It took me an hour or so.

    8

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

    Essentially the young man is saying that as soon as “others fight and die for his own nation”, he is eager to return home.

    Before we comdemn him from afar, let's remember he is 18, would he have somewhere to live? Where is his family home, is it still standing, is it in occupied territory? Would he be given a job in the army immediately?  Would it help support the rest of his family (in Germany)?  Can he help Ukraine in other ways?  Maybe he should have help abroad to renew his passport maybe not, but surely we can commend bravery of some without handing out white feathers to the rest.

    3

    This podcast is outstanding.

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    13 hours ago, paraloid said:

    He's also written a book about command in WW2 (called Command  IIRC)!

    Not surprised.  I listened to the first episode of the podcast today and it's worth a go for anyone who likes WWII history.  There's a decent enough chance he's played CM even.  He might even be perusing this conversation, as yet unaware he's dunking his tie in his bitter.

    0

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by fireship4

    28 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

    Disconnected Old (Whichever Ethnicity) Men.

    Ageist & sexist :P heheh

     

    17 minutes ago, Fernando said:

    Pope Francisco is not Italian, but Argentine. He was born and he lived in Argentina until he was elected Pope.

    sipo, es verdad pero:

    Quote

    Pope Francis granted an interview to Radio Télévision Suisse (RTS), a Swiss public station broadcasting in French, a portion of which was released on Saturday afternoon.

    The full interview with Lorenzo Buccella of the cultural programme “Cliché” was recorded in early February and will air on the Swiss TV station on March 20.

    (https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-03/pope-francis-swiss-tv-interview-gaza-ukraine-wars.html)

    suggests the interviewer may have been Italian/the interview conducted in Italian.

    EDIT: Sorry, somehow I thought you meant about the interview language, yes you are right my comment made it look like I thought the pope was Italian, I just didn't think hard enough about it, it was in my brain somewhere I'm sure.  In any case being white only being a recent thing according to some goes for South Americans too.

    0

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by fireship4

    16 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

    Not apparently, but he did so in a recorded interview. 

    Since he's speaking in Italian, I was hedging my bets, also world leaders can be somewhat "clarificative" to coin a phrase.  What they really mean, their eventual position, is the clarification:

    Quote

    On Saturday night, the Vatican spokesman, Matteo Bruni, immediately clarified that the pope meant “cease-fire and negotiation,” not surrender, when he said white flag, a universal symbol for giving up.

    EDIT:

    16 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

    Disconnected Old White Man

    Italians barely got a generation being white in some people's eyes before succumbing to this racist meme... not that I'm overly sensitive about it here and there but on the whole it gets tiresome.

    1

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by fireship4

    9 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:

    A video and some images near Avdiivka.

    Extremely disturbing for those who would like to avoid such things.

     

    With regard to:

    8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

    With great regret, I have permanently banned Zeleban from the Forum.

    In case misapprehension caused his ban, I should say it's at least possible his post:

    13 hours ago, Zeleban said:

    Your words are similar to the words of a man who spent many hours at the corrupt Ukrainian border in the hope of delivering humanitarian aid to suffering Ukrainians, fighting thousands of corrupt Ukrainian officials who are doing their best to prevent him from carrying out his good mission. I see so much pain and suffering in your posts. I'm truly sorry for you

    ...was a sincere expression of regret on realising the other poster had tried to help Ukraine and had failed due to problems with corruption/bribery, and was not just an antagonistic internet warrior.  Much can get lost between translation and the lack of context.  It's right on the edge of plausibility but worth clarifying.

    2

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by fireship4

    On 2/21/2024 at 9:09 PM, Haiduk said:

    UKR reenacting community lost two guys at once, reenactors of WWII Brits

    Here they are both during pre-war reenacting event

     image.jpeg.a70f00aeb8c57209fb789df2a432e96a.jpeg

    RIP

    Without prejudice, out of academic interest, the flag is not a proper Union Jack, and the rifle is a Mosin.

    0

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by fireship4

    4 hours ago, Haiduk said:

    dolboyebizm [I can't translate this in Englisg equivalent - it means "enormously fu...g stupid way of decision making or a deed].

    Perhaps: "Delboyism"?

    Derrick "Del-boy" Trotter, British classic sitcom icon, cockney who sells stolen goods:

    th?id=OIP.7TLYRODOI6OaTu9vI3b9QQHaFj%26pth?id=OIP.9somERP2sVzaNQ1XtM-zOAHaE4%26p

    EDIT: He even claims to support Chelsea.

    3

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    On 2/20/2024 at 4:08 AM, Offshoot said:

    Some analysis on the Battle of Irpin River (Feb-March 2022) by the British Army Review (54 page PDF). As well as the historical analysis it looks like it would be valuable for campaign designers.

    Battle of Irpin River

    I found it on Mick Ryan's twitter

     

    Available from https://chacr.org.uk (The Centre for Historical Analysis and Conflict Research, a think tank established for the British Army) as a .pdf

    4

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    19 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

    The problem with this is if the line charge triggers a mine while being reeled in then the op is fooked.  They can cut the deployed part from the spool and detonate what they have, but they'll need to hook up another UV with a cable and try again.  On second thought, that might not be so bad as you can have a LOT of drones in reserve for the price of one engineering vehicle.

    Perhaps it would be better to have a team of drones lay the entire charge in one go.  Or if the risk of severing the line in one spot is too high (remote triggers spaced along the charge might solve this) you might even have a larger team of drones each with something light like det. cord, that fly out a few feet apart and concievably create a path.

    0

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

    Here's an example of a heavy lift drone that can lift a Human.  Add extra capacity to lift 100# of gear and we have something that could be deployed tomorrow.

    Awesome.  You could have soldiers stand on top and go into battle hands free and spitting lead.  IVAN DON'T SURF!

    Almost as cool as my vision of a headless boston dynamics cavalry (with shielding for a sir's legs and torso) being ridden around by deliriously happy dragoon regiments. 

    0

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    13 hours ago, The_Capt said:

    Sorry, you came late.

    Don't know about that, I've been reading as much of the thread as I find practical since the war began.  Perhaps I missed one or two of his posts, I know I ignored quite a lot, since it all seemed to fit a pattern.

    I was in the midst of a childish argument with FlemFire, endeavoring to SpitFlames, and replied to you trying understand what you meant when you said this:

    19 hours ago, The_Capt said:

    This is insane.  The far right nutjob wants to be right so badly that he is embracing liberals progressive theory?  One cannot cherry pick liberal theory...that is not how it works.  If we are going to somehow ascend it all and embrace brother Russia for the good of all mankind, then one has to do the rest as well.  Immigration, social programs (universal healthcare), social equity, liberal capitalism and of course, climate change.

    Steve, you have the patience of Job. 

    ...Because it made no sense to me: you switched from what I normally see in your long dissertations on military strategy to an incoherent definition of "liberals progressive theory"?  Like you had a stroke.  I'm not a political scientist by any means but it is does you a disservice.  Perhaps things are different in Canada...

    13 hours ago, The_Capt said:

    The weird was when said poster started pulling in liberal theorIes, namely collectivism and global order, as some sort of soft power alternative to opposing what is either a legal war or one we forced Ukraine into (gotta be honest it is really hard to follow).

    So my point wasn’t a dissertation on liberalism, it was to point out that someone who is espousing far-right conspiracies trying to employ liberalism was nuts.  Particularly when other elements of liberalism - that I recognize from my own nation- would very likely be vehemently opposed by said poster based on his narrative.  This has been going on for a couple days now.  Sounds like you just walked in and want to compare political systems but that is really off topic and frankly kinda outside the entire discussion.  Anyway with luck Steve will ban the guy or he will simply leave.

    ...but collectivism is normally used to refer to certain communist concepts.  If I remember from quite a while back you were quite strong on self-determination of people or peoples - I would say that's a pretty liberal (in the normal sense) view.  Perhaps it was collective action between nations that was being referred to.

    Anyway I was looking for you clarify as linking global warming with liberal theory was confusing me.  Perhaps you were using it how I've heard Americans use the term 'liberal', as things have become polarised in their country and a person's position on one issue has become a good predictor of their position on others, which otherwise would have a weaker link. 

    13 hours ago, The_Capt said:

    So anyone who says “it is absolutely this!”

    This is indeed a very good indicator someone is wrong.  I've been down on Chomsky for quite a while now (I won't say he is not worth listening to) but the criticism of him I remember best was approximately that points he was making he often cast as obvious.

    I think arguing with FlemFire's approach is important in as much as I think it's the approach that is problematic.  It is easy enough to dismiss specific points, or concede specific points, but there are so many, and so many assertions.  We each of have to level up our discourse so that we survive such encounters, and remember we remain even if our bad ideas do not, and we can see where we are learning from each other and what is disingenuous, what is actually a battle of status and soundbite over truth. 

    If the West has lost the courage of it's convictions like some people say, then perhaps they must be refreshed by giving them a good whack with a spanner like FlemFire.  I happen to think that while the masses in the West have vast depths of ignorance in their own way, the deep cultural issues of the modern day exist because we are the only societies in which those things can be reexamined.  This is a strength in my book.

    Anyway, I am once again putting off my breakfast.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...