kevinkin

That is a consideration i.e. thin/extend the defenders out. But I wonder it the density of the mines prohibits a board front operation of that sort meaning the UA has to focus on narrow sectors where their key equipment can be concentrated. Unfortunately a bunch of narrow attacks does not equate into a broad front approach. Russia can identify those sectors and concentrate on them or just sit back an wait to see which one is the most serious. 

We are not going astray. It is THE discussion from a strategic and policy making POW.  Let's acknowledge the current landscape is defined by nuclear blackmail. Russian should not be in this game as a society. It's only possession of WMD that allows for Russian conduct.  There is a reason that WMDs have not been used so far despite the west's large assistance to Ukraine. Some are open minded enough to want to know why that is and if the envelope can be pushed even further into Putin face. Pretty simple. 

Thanks for the post. Sums it up in one simple sentence. However, I would like to see Ukraine get whatever is available even if it's not relevant today. It will be at some point even as deterrence. 

We are not going astray. It is THE discussion from a strategic and policy making POW.  Let's acknowledge the current landscape is defined by nuclear blackmail. Russian should not be in this game as a society. It's only possession of WMD that allows for Russian conduct.  There is a reason that WMDs have not been used so far despite the west's large assistance to Ukraine. Some are open minded enough to want to know why that is and if the envelope can be pushed even further into Putin face. Pretty simple. 

More of the same:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9
Gady said that rather than concentrating forces in assaults involving many units firing volleys of rockets and artillery—supporting simultaneous waves of advancing ground forces—Ukraine is attacking sequentially, with shelling followed by company-level infantry advances. The tactic “often telegraphs to the Russians that they’re attacking,” he said.
The small-scale approach, which is easier for commanders to orchestrate than pushing ground forces under covering artillery, creates its own problems, such as reduced mobility. Safely removing wounded soldiers from the front and bringing in fresh ammunition is more treacherous in company-level operations because the medical and logistics corps are less protected.
Conducting synchronized large-scale attacks is difficult for any armed force—even Western ones with more and better equipment than Ukraine has—because integrating vast numbers of land and air troops in the fast, violent ballet of a frontal assault is enormously difficult.
No Western military would also try to breach established defenses without controlling the skies.
“America would never attempt to defeat a prepared defense without air superiority, but they [Ukrainians] don’t have air superiority,” said John Nagl, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who is now an associate professor of warfighting studies at the U.S. Army War College. “It’s impossible to overstate how important air superiority is for fighting a ground fight at a reasonable cost in casualties.”
Some think this war is vastly different from previous ones in the mechanized era. But I think Zhukov and von Manstein would easily recognize it. They would be surprised that so much ground could be covered by a limited number of troops for sure. That's different. And the speed at which death can occur to concentrated formations is scary. Yet the defeat phenomena is the same. Pin down, out flank, wash and repeat. Today's general have a lot of fun tools to deploy. But if they are easily countered by the enemy they just stay in the toolbox while the grunt does the work like our fathers and grandfather did. 

Not sure how many mine clearing vehicles the allies have since they never intended to fight a static war like we are now watching. If they have them, they date back to the cold war. I also think ATACAMS are a bit harder to shoot down than a cruise missile. I might be wrong in both statements since I am working off of memory. 

Thanks for the post. Sums it up in one simple sentence. However, I would like to see Ukraine get whatever is available even if it's not relevant today. It will be at some point even as deterrence. 

Simple basic training of kids freshly reaching their 18 birthday is pretty much standardize and I don't think NATO's version will be some form of force multiplier. Lessons learned from the battlefield are very important for individual and small unit survival. But we can assume the the enemy is doing the same thing. What really matters in my opinion is training at the command level. Training the person to integrate the info coming from the top and from the trenches and act quickly as to out Boyd cycle the enemy. This training takes a lot more time and ideally involves training maneuvers. While not 100% reflective of real warfare, maneuvers are helpful in finding soldiers capable of commanding and leading rather that digging and pulling triggers. It's an imperfect science. In the case of Ukraine the needs are so immediate training at the command level might be skipped or abbreviated compared to what the US does in peace time. 

Not sure how many mine clearing vehicles the allies have since they never intended to fight a static war like we are now watching. If they have them, they date back to the cold war. I also think ATACAMS are a bit harder to shoot down than a cruise missile. I might be wrong in both statements since I am working off of memory. 

More of the same:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9
Gady said that rather than concentrating forces in assaults involving many units firing volleys of rockets and artillery—supporting simultaneous waves of advancing ground forces—Ukraine is attacking sequentially, with shelling followed by company-level infantry advances. The tactic “often telegraphs to the Russians that they’re attacking,” he said.
The small-scale approach, which is easier for commanders to orchestrate than pushing ground forces under covering artillery, creates its own problems, such as reduced mobility. Safely removing wounded soldiers from the front and bringing in fresh ammunition is more treacherous in company-level operations because the medical and logistics corps are less protected.
Conducting synchronized large-scale attacks is difficult for any armed force—even Western ones with more and better equipment than Ukraine has—because integrating vast numbers of land and air troops in the fast, violent ballet of a frontal assault is enormously difficult.
No Western military would also try to breach established defenses without controlling the skies.
“America would never attempt to defeat a prepared defense without air superiority, but they [Ukrainians] don’t have air superiority,” said John Nagl, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who is now an associate professor of warfighting studies at the U.S. Army War College. “It’s impossible to overstate how important air superiority is for fighting a ground fight at a reasonable cost in casualties.”
Some think this war is vastly different from previous ones in the mechanized era. But I think Zhukov and von Manstein would easily recognize it. They would be surprised that so much ground could be covered by a limited number of troops for sure. That's different. And the speed at which death can occur to concentrated formations is scary. Yet the defeat phenomena is the same. Pin down, out flank, wash and repeat. Today's general have a lot of fun tools to deploy. But if they are easily countered by the enemy they just stay in the toolbox while the grunt does the work like our fathers and grandfather did. 

Thanks for the post. Sums it up in one simple sentence. However, I would like to see Ukraine get whatever is available even if it's not relevant today. It will be at some point even as deterrence. 

More of the same:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9
Gady said that rather than concentrating forces in assaults involving many units firing volleys of rockets and artillery—supporting simultaneous waves of advancing ground forces—Ukraine is attacking sequentially, with shelling followed by company-level infantry advances. The tactic “often telegraphs to the Russians that they’re attacking,” he said.
The small-scale approach, which is easier for commanders to orchestrate than pushing ground forces under covering artillery, creates its own problems, such as reduced mobility. Safely removing wounded soldiers from the front and bringing in fresh ammunition is more treacherous in company-level operations because the medical and logistics corps are less protected.
Conducting synchronized large-scale attacks is difficult for any armed force—even Western ones with more and better equipment than Ukraine has—because integrating vast numbers of land and air troops in the fast, violent ballet of a frontal assault is enormously difficult.
No Western military would also try to breach established defenses without controlling the skies.
“America would never attempt to defeat a prepared defense without air superiority, but they [Ukrainians] don’t have air superiority,” said John Nagl, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who is now an associate professor of warfighting studies at the U.S. Army War College. “It’s impossible to overstate how important air superiority is for fighting a ground fight at a reasonable cost in casualties.”
Some think this war is vastly different from previous ones in the mechanized era. But I think Zhukov and von Manstein would easily recognize it. They would be surprised that so much ground could be covered by a limited number of troops for sure. That's different. And the speed at which death can occur to concentrated formations is scary. Yet the defeat phenomena is the same. Pin down, out flank, wash and repeat. Today's general have a lot of fun tools to deploy. But if they are easily countered by the enemy they just stay in the toolbox while the grunt does the work like our fathers and grandfather did. 

More of the same:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9
Gady said that rather than concentrating forces in assaults involving many units firing volleys of rockets and artillery—supporting simultaneous waves of advancing ground forces—Ukraine is attacking sequentially, with shelling followed by company-level infantry advances. The tactic “often telegraphs to the Russians that they’re attacking,” he said.
The small-scale approach, which is easier for commanders to orchestrate than pushing ground forces under covering artillery, creates its own problems, such as reduced mobility. Safely removing wounded soldiers from the front and bringing in fresh ammunition is more treacherous in company-level operations because the medical and logistics corps are less protected.
Conducting synchronized large-scale attacks is difficult for any armed force—even Western ones with more and better equipment than Ukraine has—because integrating vast numbers of land and air troops in the fast, violent ballet of a frontal assault is enormously difficult.
No Western military would also try to breach established defenses without controlling the skies.
“America would never attempt to defeat a prepared defense without air superiority, but they [Ukrainians] don’t have air superiority,” said John Nagl, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who is now an associate professor of warfighting studies at the U.S. Army War College. “It’s impossible to overstate how important air superiority is for fighting a ground fight at a reasonable cost in casualties.”
Some think this war is vastly different from previous ones in the mechanized era. But I think Zhukov and von Manstein would easily recognize it. They would be surprised that so much ground could be covered by a limited number of troops for sure. That's different. And the speed at which death can occur to concentrated formations is scary. Yet the defeat phenomena is the same. Pin down, out flank, wash and repeat. Today's general have a lot of fun tools to deploy. But if they are easily countered by the enemy they just stay in the toolbox while the grunt does the work like our fathers and grandfather did. 

I suppose that might be true for those handicapped with just 2 brain cells. Life must be scary especially when they run out of meds. This line of discussion boils down to trying to understand where Russia's red-line exists. It's impossible to know. I assure you, many in government are up late tonight trying to figure that out giving their third cell a whole lot to think about. But I don't think they are insulting each other based on differing opinions of where the red-line stands. They have a list of items donated to Ukraine that have not crossed the red-line. (HIMARS, AFVs, 155 mm shells, bullets, boats, etc,) And as they close up shop for the weekend the question becomes: "ya know maybe we are over thinking this, let's get a beer." 

I suppose that might be true for those handicapped with just 2 brain cells. Life must be scary especially when they run out of meds. This line of discussion boils down to trying to understand where Russia's red-line exists. It's impossible to know. I assure you, many in government are up late tonight trying to figure that out giving their third cell a whole lot to think about. But I don't think they are insulting each other based on differing opinions of where the red-line stands. They have a list of items donated to Ukraine that have not crossed the red-line. (HIMARS, AFVs, 155 mm shells, bullets, boats, etc,) And as they close up shop for the weekend the question becomes: "ya know maybe we are over thinking this, let's get a beer." 

No, it's far more important and therefore worth the added risk. 
 
All that can be managed. That's why we spent so much money on the technology and training to enforce a no-fly zone. If Russia lights up an allied a/c they would be toast. Yes, there is risk. But I think it's worth it to save Ukraine. I do respect your thoughts on this. Tough call. 

Timely report/summary seeing all this is top of mind:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/zelensky-blames-western-aid-delays
“Ukraine has a substantial amount of combat power that it has not yet committed to the fight, and it is trying to choose its moment to commit that combat power to the fight when it will have the maximum impact on the battlefield,” Sullivan said. “And we are in close consultation with Ukrainians on the conditions for that. But ultimately, that's a decision they will make, and it is at that moment ... that we will really see what the likely results of this counteroffensive will be.”
Zelensky, who made a point to “thank all of our partners,” mentioning Biden by name, implied that this moment could be in the offing.
“We are approaching a moment when relevant actions can gain pace,” he said, “because we are already going through some mines locations, and we are demining these areas.”
The last sentence is vague but I'll say the glass is half full for now. 

Well that was an unfortunate episode. But it's also unfortunate that Ukraine can't run for cover and they did call the cops in the name of the US. But the cops have so far arrived with insufficient firepower to end the dispute. Maybe that will change. 

I am not advocating nuclear war but advocating being more aggressive short of that. We will never know where the red line is unless we start inching toward it. For example, would a no-fly zone over Ukraine instigate a nuclear war? Don't think so. Would a two week air campaign against Russian positions in Ukraine be dangerous. Maybe, maybe not. How did we come to the conclusion the current level of assistance to Ukraine is safe against escalation? We only know because we are giving it. I think measures directed to remove Russia from Ukraine, while not threatening Russia's existence, will not escalate. 

That's the point. You get it. We can't let evil regimes have a place in the world order merely because they threaten mass destruction. At some point a confrontation has to take place or evil will run roughshod across the planet. 

This is the first time a nuclear nation, which has become weak in comparison to the the US, is hiding behind the threat of using WMDs to conquer its neighbor. During the cold war, America and the USSR never got to the point we are now. For example, the west ceded Czechoslovakia and had a bunch of relatively low level conflicts with the Soviets across the globe. Never with tens of thousands killed in a short time as we have today. What we face is different. It is only because of its nuclear weapons Russian is in the fight. Period. That's why I call it blackmail. Russian in 2023 is not the USSR in 1970. The possession of a single nuke gives a nation more power than it would naturally have without one. We can't let this become a trend into the future or there is little future. We also can't let one nation shoulder all the burden fighting on the ground because we don't have the stomach to call Russia's bluff. This a teachable moment. It was inevitable once the wall fell and Ukraine gave up it's nukes. If there was ever a time to confront Russia it's now. By asking who’s afraid of escalation I am merely trying to get a sense of what aggressive actions the west can take to help Ukraine without causing Russia to go nuke. I think the west is nowhere near that red line. And Ukrainians are suffering because of the west’s inaction. 

No, it's far more important and therefore worth the added risk. 
 
All that can be managed. That's why we spent so much money on the technology and training to enforce a no-fly zone. If Russia lights up an allied a/c they would be toast. Yes, there is risk. But I think it's worth it to save Ukraine. I do respect your thoughts on this. Tough call. 

That's the point. You get it. We can't let evil regimes have a place in the world order merely because they threaten mass destruction. At some point a confrontation has to take place or evil will run roughshod across the planet. 

No, it's far more important and therefore worth the added risk. 
 
All that can be managed. That's why we spent so much money on the technology and training to enforce a no-fly zone. If Russia lights up an allied a/c they would be toast. Yes, there is risk. But I think it's worth it to save Ukraine. I do respect your thoughts on this. Tough call. 

Are you suggesting Putin can be reasoned with? I understand the analogy you are making but it just doesn't apply to warfare. Especially when one side only respects strength and dismisses nuisance.