fireship4

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.
The Russian regime might collapse. This would be a risk. You think the only way to win is for the Russia to collapse. Russia doesn't need to collapse for there to be peace. You think Ukraine must have total victory and anything else is defeat.  This is holding you back. (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. (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. (6.3) We must fight to achieve a better negotiating position, this might require Russia to collapse. (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.

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.
The Russian regime might collapse. This would be a risk. You think the only way to win is for the Russia to collapse. Russia doesn't need to collapse for there to be peace. You think Ukraine must have total victory and anything else is defeat.  This is holding you back. (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. (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. (6.3) We must fight to achieve a better negotiating position, this might require Russia to collapse. (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.

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.
The Russian regime might collapse. This would be a risk. You think the only way to win is for the Russia to collapse. Russia doesn't need to collapse for there to be peace. You think Ukraine must have total victory and anything else is defeat.  This is holding you back. (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. (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. (6.3) We must fight to achieve a better negotiating position, this might require Russia to collapse. (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.

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.
The Russian regime might collapse. This would be a risk. You think the only way to win is for the Russia to collapse. Russia doesn't need to collapse for there to be peace. You think Ukraine must have total victory and anything else is defeat.  This is holding you back. (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. (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. (6.3) We must fight to achieve a better negotiating position, this might require Russia to collapse. (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.

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.
The Russian regime might collapse. This would be a risk. You think the only way to win is for the Russia to collapse. Russia doesn't need to collapse for there to be peace. You think Ukraine must have total victory and anything else is defeat.  This is holding you back. (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. (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. (6.3) We must fight to achieve a better negotiating position, this might require Russia to collapse. (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.

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.
The Russian regime might collapse. This would be a risk. You think the only way to win is for the Russia to collapse. Russia doesn't need to collapse for there to be peace. You think Ukraine must have total victory and anything else is defeat.  This is holding you back. (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. (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. (6.3) We must fight to achieve a better negotiating position, this might require Russia to collapse. (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.

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.
The Russian regime might collapse. This would be a risk. You think the only way to win is for the Russia to collapse. Russia doesn't need to collapse for there to be peace. You think Ukraine must have total victory and anything else is defeat.  This is holding you back. (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. (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. (6.3) We must fight to achieve a better negotiating position, this might require Russia to collapse. (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.

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.
The Russian regime might collapse. This would be a risk. You think the only way to win is for the Russia to collapse. Russia doesn't need to collapse for there to be peace. You think Ukraine must have total victory and anything else is defeat.  This is holding you back. (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. (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. (6.3) We must fight to achieve a better negotiating position, this might require Russia to collapse. (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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There's a new Kraut. He makes the case that in about the only way is the term Eastern Europe still relevant, is that it defines a bunch of people who really are not a fan of Russians (or imperialism).
 

St. Bernard's fire...

St. Bernard's fire...

Russians gradually have been learing of Ukrainian experience of artillery fire control. If in 2022  - mid 23 we have seen typical Soviet style of whole batteries and even battalions of side-by-side standing guns simultainous work, that now Russians are more and more shifting to dispersing of artillery and work by single guns of a battery with individaual targeting for each.
Here is google-translated post about changes since 2022. "The work was carried out in areas with a low coeeficient of UAV use" - means "ineffective area fire with low UAV usage", though for summer 2022 it's not always could be true, or soldiers then reported about dozen Orlans and Zala, ajusting fire. Probably ajusting was inefefctive or come on too long command chain, which made it ineffective.

 
And addition to this post by other Russian artillerist with my translation:
I'l throw my 5 cents:
Regimental artillery tied on artillery chief (of regiment). He, sitting on command post (let's call it in such way) together with chief of recon, watch streams from UAVs (and intercepted streams of the enemy). Spotting the target chief of artillery transmits it to battery commander or senior battery officer  [he is commander of 1st artillery platoon also] and they transmit this data to the gun. 2-7 minutes for targeting of the gun, the bird [drone] in the sky. First shoot - the fire ajustment from artilelry chief directly to the gun. Or artillery chief opens the map, come into communication with gun commandr through the radio and gives the targeting (angle, azimuth, lines). The gun crew lives on position 2-5 days, further a rotation is coming. Nobody drink on position, it's taboo, else they go to "zakrep" [probably those who have to hold the ground after assault] - and this is more scary than to stormers. 
We don't work with mortars since new year. This is no longer relevant becaus of crews life preservation purposes. Drones already fly on 10 km in the rear, so they clicks them at once  

And here Russian feedback about CAESERs

The story with Tsar-EW-tank got a continue.
After Russian attack was repelled, additional recon showed that this tank hadn't critical damages and can be moved to our positions as valuable source, because almost all Russian portable anti-drone EW assets were mounted which just were possible. It's turned out our FPV damaged only targeting system, then a tank tracks stuck in barbed wire with attached AT-mines, tank lost control, crashed into disabled BMP and stopped - the crew abandoned tank. 
During several nights two "Azov" tankers have been providing reparing works. They unlocked driver's hatch, because a gun was directly under it, then they changed a 70 kg battery, which brought from own positions - this work should be done by three men, but they did it together. Then they unraveled and cut the wire on the tracks and removed a mine under the tank. All this in the nights and not in calm situation - one night Russians tried to recapture tank, sending a group on the bikes (!!!), but it was eliminated. 
After all "Azov" tankers turned on engine and drove to own positions in Terny. But on the route the tank in the darkness fell into bomb crater, the driver hit head and lost consciousness. Fortunately he came to senses soon and could drive out the crater. Tank arrived to Terny, where the crew already awaited Serhiy "Flash" - admin of FB/TG channel about EW and communication systems. On the photo below he already researhes trophy equipmnent
    
 

Very timely in light of recent discussion on drone technology 
 

(source: The trained agent controlled an off-the-shelf Robotis OP3 humanoid robot, which costs around $14,000)
(Robots are 20" tall. Some assembly required. Batteries not included)

https://maritime-executive.com/article/south-korea-detains-stateless-cargo-ship-investigating-sanctions-violations
 
South Korea detained a North Korean ship for potential sanctions violations
Ahoi mateys, tharr be plunderr to be had in thar Yellow Sea, arr!!

OK, different Cockburn, but same ideology lol. Pretty sure Andrew's a tankie too....
In uni, we used to call these guys the 'Sandalistas'

I've noted before my intimation that the full reform of the Ukrainian military is where its true strategic victory lies - and not into the standard Western /NATO model but true reform that keeps what works from the old, Soviet model combined and transformed into a unique hybrid. I suspect that a military which reflects the the nature of and enables the latent power of the transformed society it springs from will be finally secure from Russia. 
As an inveterate autocracy, with the particular geography it contains, Russia will only ever have the type of military it's ever had - mass and power. 
Ukraine, being a society that is something more and different, has a generational opportunity to create a unique defence force. 
 
 

Pekka brings another good graph. 
Stars n stripes, really? 

Data before january on positions is not accurate as tracking didnt start properly then.