kevinkin

You can't find a forum on this subject that is so well sourced and the sources challenged like a recruit in boot camp. If this thread could indexed in detail, it would be a great start on the history of this god awful conflict. No numbers cited, but here is one for us old timers: https://www.wearethemighty.com/intel/the-united-states-is-dusting-off-cold-war-era-weapons-for-use-in-ukraine/

Main stream media catching on to the titration approach to support the war effort; The line of what systems are “too escalatory” to send to Ukraine has constantly been moving in Ukraine’s favor, with weapons thought to be too escalatory at the start of the war now either on their way or on the table. The U.S. and other countries have sent artillery to Ukraine throughout the conflict, but non-Soviet tanks and infantry fighting vehicles—IFVs for short—were an informal red line until just recently. https://www.yahoo.com/news/epic-arsenal-western-guns-coming-010759481.html All else is old news. More about why Russia has lost already even with this horrible status quo at the front: "My view is he's in trouble, no matter what. The outcome in Ukraine, even if Russia 'wins' in the Kremlin's current war goals, deals Russia a devastating strategic setback," Reno said. "Russia's exports of natural resources have become problematic. No one will want its weaponry. They chased off the most productive parts of their own population. Their economy will struggle as neighbors' economies grow...Even in an authoritarian state, its hard for a leadership that screwed up so bad to survive." https://www.newsweek.com/putin-biggest-weak-spot-exposed-ukraine-ambition-grows-1773741

Well we do know they effectively have no modern air force nor navy that can conduct conventional sustained operations. Just a kit for nuclear blackmail. Like I said above, we are debating the pace of support given to Ukraine hour by hour almost. Several factors are in play: training is one. It takes time and resources. Another is that we don't want to appear to be at war with Russia - as silly as that seems today. Support has to be managed at the proper pace technically and with the overall picture in mind. NATO and Ukraine need to be attached at the hip regarding how these new weapons are used. Dumping "war material as physically possible" would not solve anything and actually become wasteful and non-productive. No sense having armadas of AFVs sitting around waiting for trained troops. And just because NATO is not manning these does not indicate a lack of commitment. We haven't protected Ukraine with a no fly zone either. It may come down to this simple selection: Russian troops, die in place, die moving forward, or just go home.

No they are not and may never. If they do cooperate and take less oil, it will be at their own pace. Not the West's. And in the case of China, nothing they do will be in the West's interest. It's silly to think otherwise. Meanwhile Ukraine, a nation unjustly attacked, it being bleed white but still stands. The status quo as it exists at the front is untenable and not in the interest of NATO or the US. The status quo must be upended in the Ukraine's favor or we are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Some here are more worried than others about the correlation of forces moving forward. Miley is concerned. That's why he threw Putin a bone. But he also knows the RA is a collection of Rock 'Em Sock Em Robots. The little guy didn't or couldn't take the bone. So now starts the transfer of more modern western equipment. We also have discussed the proper pace of such transfers. No one here wants a nuclear war and nothing proposed would instigate one. PS: somewhere I read the official channels between the US and Russia have never been so busy. I will try to find the source again.

All Russia has left is nuclear blackmail at this point. Now is not the time to kick the can down the road. They, or some other two bit so-called nation will do the same in the future. All the west and Ukraine are asking is a return to the pre 2014 borders. Then they will talk. Otherwise they will have to be forced out. And that is not a nuclear trigger in itself. I am starting to think that the west sees UA casualties mount and is now slowly replacing bodies with high tech bullets calculating that if P has not gone nuclear by now, its time to titrate more offensive ground taking equipment into the theater. You can't negotiate from strength with Russia occupying Ukrainian soil.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2023/01/13/did-anyone-say-war-fatigue-about-ukraine/ Russia has fallen back to more defensive positions, recruited fresh troops through mass conscription, returned to frenetic industrial production (40 to 50 heavy armored vehicles per month) and is crowding its best tanks, the T-90, in eastern Ukraine. Is this true? And what freaking quality are they spitting out if so? Here is one line summary of the "agreement": There is at least one thing on which Russia and NATO agree: Neither want the alliance directly dragged into the war. The rules to prevent such an event were set early on and they still hold. They are that NATO nations shall not find themselves as co-belligerents in Ukraine and that Russia shall not attack NATO territory. It implies that the weapons delivered from abroad are in Ukrainian hands, and that their ammunitions do not fall on Russian territory. In this regard, the new military aid does not change the rules of the game as long as Ukrainians respect these rules of engagement. On the nuclear equation, the only escalation that the new deliveries might incur would be related to Moscow’s rhetoric. Russia is all too aware that nuclear threats have no impact on Ukrainian resolve. The main objective of Moscow’s nuclear saber-rattling is therefore to scare the West so that it restrains its support to Ukraine. This, too, seems to have failed. So the gloves are coming off. No war fatigue. But don't back Putin and the likes of Prigozhin into a corner. Only then might the nukes fly. (?) Can Russia withdraw in the face of a deadly stream of western weapons and just live to fight another day? Internally, "Hey it was us against NATO and the west; we did our best for mother Russia. Next time will be different. And the time after that, even more different." What an uneasy peace this may become.

Sure they matter. But "Because poker, unlike chess or go, is a game of "imperfect information" -- the opponent's cards are hidden -- computing a Nash Equilibrium won't work because opponents can employ different strategies at each move, so there's no way for the machine to look ahead as it might in chess." But reading how others at the table understand and play the same deck matters as well. There is a lot of intuition and risk - reward determinations too. No human can calculate like AlphaZero, so good poker players win by understanding basic probabilities and then a heavy dose of something else. https://www.zdnet.com/article/machine-learning-goes-beyond-theory-to-beat-human-poker-champs/

Many chess masters have taken on poker in recent years. Can be more lucrative if you are not a super GM (top 15). All things equal, a poker player would make a better general since poker involves reading human behavior and chess is a finite problem. I bet Putin sucks at poker. He just tells his handlers to give him the cards he needs.

I read that biologists consider the beaver the best at engineering their environment compared to all other mammals. So bring on those furry sappers!. They know who to fight for. Ants are pretty good to. But leave them to the RA. I hear the conscripts run from them.

Yes, for a week or so the battlespace would have to be washed clean by dedicated SEAD/DEAD aircraft. If possible, try saturating Russian logistics and conscript moral with precision ground based fires first. A lot depends on how much ammo is stock piled. So smart targeting might be the magic bullet. Or call it the magic sledgehammer. If HIMARs is forcing dispersal, the critical vulnerability now could be preventing concentration before deployment. So mining minor feeder roads with arty might be nice. The Capt mentioned this above.

You are right about the the F16 versatility : it's faster, higher flying and can have an AA loadout and a CAS loadout on the same flight. The F16 can carry A-120Ds, HARMs and JASSM too. Don't forget about the powerful radar that enhances everything. The A10 is a more tactical/operational system, while the F16 is more operational/strategic. Use the A10 to kill armor and dug in lines of troops. Use the F16 to interdict those troops and provide air cover as well. You can have various F16s ready on the flight line with different kill capacities. Kill tank groupings/staging areas, not single AFVs. While I would continue to fund the A10, the F16 is more of a Swiss army knife. That said, don't hold your breath. Even the A10 would take time to have an effect on the ground situation. Maybe not until next year I am afraid. But with expedited training earlier.

The thing is that NATO is not going to give just a single type of a/c to Ukraine. The idea is to deliver strike packages that contain SEAD/DEAD ; AEW; JASSM (USAF or USN) ; F35 ; and multi-role F/B. A week of 24/7 with those packages and the RA would not exist in Ukraine. Their AD could not deal with the number of in-comings, let alone their precision. This is not a insurgent army, but a old fashioned conventional army to be destroyed. However, there is the escalation piece to mull over. One off A10s and choppers, maybe. No, the magic bullet is something more subtle. Typhoid Jane in Russian foxholes just as an analogy.

Brief mid-war report on HIMARS effectiveness in the two UA counter-offensives: https://www.businessinsider.com/fighting-in-eastern-ukraine-showed-benefits-and-limitations-of-himars-2023-1 Does the west have another magic bullet in the chamber and what would that be? Note, HIMARS directly impacted a RA doctrinal weakness. Perhaps we can just out bid Prigozhin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nxr2KaynZI Or maybe a large clandestine electronic warfare campaign aimed to screw up tactical and operational networks. NATO armor at proposed levels won't do it completely. Need something the backward RA just can't deal with for a few months. Seems that Wagner and Crimea are prime targets and Putin's Center of Gravity. Not as a source of strength, but a critical vulnerability affecting his internal politics. I mean, what the f does he have left to show for? https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1720064/Russia-war-in-Ukraine-frontline-Challenger-2-tanks-Crimea-land-bridge https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-could-strike-devastating-blow-putin-crimea-1773386 Well the press is eyeing up Crimea.

We are finding that the science of polling is becoming more an art over the past 10 years. You can't rely on accurate responses in flash e.g. overnight polling. Opinions change with the weather. However, given enough time to use the right experimental methods (which can take weeks), polls do have value assaying big issues where opinions don't change overnight. To use daily polling to adjust campaign messaging is a waste of money. It's an inside the beltway thing.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/11012023-russian-withdrawal-from-kherson-would-it-help-end-or-escalate-the-war-oped/ Off the beaten track ... Kaliningrad is mentioned today in this article that otherwise menders all over the place. Stoltenberg was worried that this would greatly reduce the information retrieved in the event of a nuclear conflict and that the deployment of Russian medium-range SSC-8 missiles eliminating the balance between Russia and NATO has given Moscow the chance of a first strike. The Secretary General of NATO believes that the deployment of this type of missile in the Kaliningrad region will cover all parts of Europe as potential targets. They could be used to destroy many NATO military infrastructures and target vital European cities such as Berlin, London, Paris, and Rome. Maybe some form of stepped up surveillance is taking place. Enter the navies? Would P be so bold?

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3807448-russia-on-verge-of-biggest-gain-in-ukraine-since-summer/ ISW said .. “[Wagner Group leader Yevgeny] Prigozhin will continue to use both confirmed and fabricated Wagner Group success in Soledar and Bakhmut to promote the Wagner Group as the only Russian force in Ukraine capable of securing tangible gains,” the institute said in an analysis. Perhaps a little confusion at the top might be good overall. But that sector appears to be an unfortunate meatgrinder. Don't think Prigozhi will win out unless Russia falls into dystopia and I don't think we want to go that far.

A ways to go: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-government-european-union-business-64e7343d7f2e29c6f738062ea100f31b Report: Oil price cap takes small slice of Russia’s revenue Good news is there is a room to further shrink the Russian economy. But pressure is on about how much due to the overall global economy. Has a very quick blurb on an embargo of downstream oil products that will take time to take hold. Bottom line: "Russia will not sell oil to countries obeying the cap, a threat which has not materialized because the cap is above the market price." When they go high we go low. er.

Yep, mentioned that a while ago now. By extension, Ukraine does not have a SEAD/DEAD tradition as well. That is why CAS is dangerous for them. If armed drones pieced together in a flash are a pain for the RA, image craving out a protected corridor for attack choppers and what that would do to RA conscript moral. A battalion of Apaches would make the the P66 line impregnable from a stand off distance give the flat terrain. Just watch the MANPADs Perchance to dream. Agree. Exactly. This is why artillery is having a huge effect on combat in this continental war having insufficient CAS. It's been mentioned: HIMARS is taking the place of deep strike aerial operations. No/less need for SEAD.

Let's not forget China is producing low cost everyday goods using what amounts to slave labor. These goods have a razor thin profit margin. What the map does not show is the influence China might be establishing in the southern hemisphere by dumping goods on them. Even in the US, we buy cheap Chinese goods for everyday purposes while maintaining 2-3 BMWs in the garbage of a 5 bedroom house. It's difficult to fight dumping goods. When southern hemisphere wakes up in the morning surrounded by the latest kitchen gadgets and knock-off this and that it comes down to which system they want to live under. One that will use them, or one that will bend over backward to help them flourish.

Putin needs to withdraw from Ukraine or at the very least stop attacking and, in both cases, go over into full nationwide recovery. But he needs to convince the Russian public, military and conservative warmongers that this course of action is in the nation's best interest. That's the hard part since the most important elements in Russian society are not rational. In fact, Putin, who is not completely rational, appears to be somewhat pragmatic. So he needs to trade something for something. While moving to the strategic defensive would minimize Russia's military weakness, Putin would promise a massive asymmetric intelligence offensive overseas. This would play to a historic strength. But be only a temporary gift to the warmongers. Perhaps back away from the world's worst actors and play off a county like India. Find areas in geopolitics where small victories are visible but tangible. He might set Russian down a real path to normalcy and then go and die. The problem I have is finding a way to get Russian out of the same post-Cold War cascade of political and societal debacles. History can repeat itself. A change in direction requires an national epiphany which is nearly impossible to manufacture or plan for.

" In effect, these ideas reverse the central dogma of sensory processing, with a flow of information from higher- to lower-order cortical areas playing a role equal in importance to the feedforward pathways. The construction of a subjective percept involves making the best sense of sensory inputs based on a set of hypotheses or constraints derived by prior knowledge and contextual influences." When it comes to gestalt learning, the whole is greater than all of its parts. So gestalt thinkers see the whole picture as more important than the individual pieces or components. Instead of learning one part at a time, they learn in chunks called gestalts. As a result, they also learn language in chunks. https://www.albert.io/blog/gestalt-principles-ap-psychology-crash-course/ Idea is not new. Lab methods to detect it at the biochemical level are. I always new LC/MS would go everywhere. On long term planning: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". Grandma's brevity is to be commended.

I think they will go through most (hopefully not) of the Bradley's first - other than perhaps specialty Stryker's. Love em or hate em, they have become a key part of US Army's mission. We have talked about training. Right now I see Ukraine like the guy simultaneously balancing ten spinning dishes on sticks. Too much too soon might just get in the way. In fact we might see M1's before Strykers. Ah, the old breakthrough tank. The Stryker would be a great part of a fast reaction force at the new border once one is established and might go on sale as part of the 2024 model year. Heck, they have a lot of premium features to choose from.

https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-fights-russian-assault-salt-mining-town-along-eastern-front-2023-01-09/ The length a bad short order cook goes to get a pinch of salt amazes me.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/long-war-ukraine-russia-protracted-conflict In a publication devoted to foreign affairs, the dismal shape of the RA never comes up. Otherwise, the arguments are fairly standard, if not well summarize, predicting a long war. The writers says that western quality can't overcome RA mass. But they fail to realize that the mass is cancerous. An important question: if the west went all in on equipment with training, and backed away from titrating it, would the UA have the manpower needed to use that equipment operationally in a manner that would excise the cancer in 2023? I would imagine the term "pacing" comes up a lot inside the defense department. Whenever the United States faces a foreign policy crisis, critics claim that the U.S. government is doing either too much or not enough. So it is with Ukraine. Many fault the Biden administration for failing to provide Ukrainian forces with the heavy weapons—mainly tanks, long-range missiles, and combat aircraft—that they say are needed to expel Russian troops from Ukrainian soil. Others, worried about Western staying power and the rising human and economic costs of the war, urge the administration to pressure Kyiv into negotiating a deal with Russia—even if that means giving up some of its territory. Neither argument is convincing. The Ukrainian military has surprised everyone with its capacity to defend the country and even retake a good part of the territory it lost at the outset of the war. But ejecting Russian troops from all its territory, including Crimea, will be exceedingly difficult, even with greater Western military aid. Achieving such an outcome would require the collapse of dug-in and reinforced Russian defenses and would risk starting a direct war between NATO and Russia, a doomsday scenario that no one wants. As for negotiations, Russian President Vladimir Putin has given no indication that he is prepared to give up his imperial dream of controlling Ukraine. And it would be just as difficult to convince the Ukrainian government to cede territories to a brutal occupying force in return for an uncertain peace. Given the strong incentives on both sides to continue fighting, a third outcome is much more likely: a prolonged, grinding war that gradually becomes frozen along a line of control that neither side accepts.

https://www.army-technology.com/features/promise-of-armour-and-combined-arms-training-to-ukraine-point-to-new-phase-in-russia-war/ Through the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, created in order to give Ukraine a forum in which to request equipment from supportive and NATO states, Kyiv has been able to acquire, at a cost that NATO states will want to be recovered, the right platforms for the particular stage the war was in. Indeed, the level of planning that has gone into the support for Ukraine indicates NATO taking a persistent strategic view of the war and the need for Russia to fail in its bid to overthrow the government of President Volodomyr Zelensky in Kyiv. In other words, NATO is titrating the introduction of arms to met the realities on the ground as they develop. Training is not instantaneous, so there is a sizable delay between the political decisions and the battlefield use of new systems. I think this is a way of titrating the war and being done to avoid pushing Putin over the edge by slowly warming the water around the frog. Persistent means we love you, but not enough to push the monster into a corner all at once. NATO hand-me-downs (of which there are a lot) in the hands of trained UA fighter, is an order of magnitude better than what the RA can field. In the end Ukraine could have one the best ground armies in the world - if not in history.