Kinophile

Their concerns are nice and all, but there's a popular referendum in Ukraine to thread before acceptance of any peace deal.

Beat me to the punch! Yah his descriptions of shell shock and combat stress/fatigue do ring true (ie consistent with other accounts) but Id like to know if other RL Mil here can verify? I've been tracking the Kremina movements so I've an idea where he might be operating. Sure does sound like they're starting to shift along the probability curve of getting killed. To quote thelma & Louise: Max: You know, the one thing I can't figure out is whether these girls are real smart or just real, real lucky? Hal : Don't matter. Brains'll only get you so far - and luck always runs out.

Exactly.

How could it succeed? It's given nothing to Ukraine. You're looking at this from a Great Powers Make The Big Decsions angle but Ukraine is not some teeny weeny Balkan nobody. It's several tens of millions strong, armed to the teeth, slugging it evenly with the Ivan and winning and mad as hell. They're in an existencial fight and even then are aware that they'll probably have to fight again in the not-to-far future. Their children will inherit the Russian problem. They're not gonna take it anymore, and there's absolutely zero anything China can do to affect that mental decision point - except overtly and substantially taking Russia's side, which would directly contradict the intentions you suggest above. China has no pull on Ukraine. So no peace deal is going to happen from Chinese pressure or influence angling, but from American. And if China starts Dickie g around in the war, then America is in no way going to listen to their offers. It'll just outspend them and American society can take a hell of a lot more spending and not fracture than China.

That's an internal confliction within an absurdity. A state backed digital coinage issued by China, first taken up by Russia, then the tiny number of other pariah states, then some more tin pot banana republics in the Third World... Is going to somehow undercut the Western backed, already in use, easy to trade and deeply familiar American Dollar? I mean, sure, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition - but that's the Spanish Flea Circus National Judeaen Peoples Liberation Front of The Knight's Who Say Nee!

See, I don't buy this argument. Yes Drones are cheap. So are tank shells. An NLAW is cheap compared to a T72. So what. An armored platform with a big *** gun is immensely effective against soft crunchy humans. Weather that battle wagon is semi - autonomous, manual or AI driven is the real question,not the platform itself. UGVs are not going to stay small. A 120mm gun is enormously useful, both directly and as latent threat and will need a heavy platform. That doesn't need to be 70 tons, maybe 30-50, but it's still gonna be Heavy. So I don't buy for one fat second that the ground Drones of the future will be just a swarm of cow sized UGVs. There will, for sure, be larger, Big Daddy units with the fire power to shoot through anything in front of them. Naturally, there will be counters to them, other Big Daddys or, to give them a more appropriate name, Main Battle Tanks. Now, designing next tanks using old preconceptions ("L3 will fight in the same environment as Leo 2")is dumb. But if Leo 3 is semi autonomous with capacity to upgrade to better "AI" and has minimal crew, then that makes sense...

That's amazing work. The dying gaul pose is extremely powerful. Zelensky should get in on the public support and rehabilitation of the wars injured.

I think you may need to watch Perun's video on Chinese defense industries, and what PPP really means, with numbers from real works sources. It doesn't cover everything ref that subject, stays within Defense sector but its very clear. We can apply the same principles to other sectors. Here you have a basic analysis that compares apples to apples, but it's nowhere near that simplistic.

My friend, I think you need to get outside... (of that website). I mean that in sorta jest, but really as good faith encouragment. DK is fine(ish) but it has a strong inherent bias (as any website does, to individual degrees). Surely you're looking elsewhere, to compare and contrast your own preconceptions?

There are significant caveats to this, no? Does not Ukraine fight (and fought) the way it does out of sheer necessity, not just pre-war doctrine? It seems that Russia fought in its original style in many ways due to its large pre-war vehicle park. Howebver a year of destruction has eroded that park and Russia does not seem capable of overmatching the current Rate Of Attrition, so is forced into tactical adjustments. Very soon (if not already in motion) they will be force to change their operational formatting. In fact, I suspect this is actually underway with the effective abandonment of the BTG model and the readjustment of force back into the classic (and larger) more resilient formations. An all-western force by its own internal definition, would not operate under the same pressures, fail-points and stressors as the ZSU did at the start, no? A modern, integrated and fully implemented NATO style force (if that's what we're implying here) could not have struggled vis a vis this Russian invasion. If the ZSU, for all its faults, weaknesses (and even outright treason in its ranks) was able to both hold and throw back multiple Russian axis then surely a NATO force would have tripled that effect? The sheer quantity of quality equipment and matching doctrine, training from trench level to 40,000 ft up top would have done enormous damage extremely quickly. The Ukes are kicking some serious *** with just dribbles of our gear, They're using the stuff in the way it was intended, designed and doctrined for and slaughtering Russians with it every day- but you think an all-western approach might have struggled? I do fully agree, institutional blind spots abound in Western militaries, indeed all militaries because they are institutions. It's inevitable and inherent in the nature of the beast. But there are blind spots and just plain blind.

Komrad Bil, master of the backhanded compliment.

Thank you, that was an excellent clarification and discussion.

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/02/evolving-plans-ukraines-m1-abrams-tanks-could-come-from-us-stockpiles-official-says/ Good if true. @Haiduk where are the human waves in that vid? Just guy shooting his mg...

Could be early test fires of ATACAMS?

Omg you're right! The wooden doors! And those crates on the left! Great ambush spot but also super vulnerable if the oppo is familiar.

Drastic jumps in CB effectiveness would be my hope. Arty is all the RUS Army has left and even that is finally getting eaten to some degree. But stick a battery of Caesars on CB with BFIST and heavy drone surveillance, well, https://giphy.com/gifs/pizza-rick-and-morty-mr-poopybutthole-37sgKQ38vBc1a

Yeah, blood red would be appropriate.

And lastly : https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/3673582-zelensky-signs-off-law-allowing-dutyfree-imports-of-uavs.html Making it easier and cheaper to import UAVs signals a government that gets the idea....

Potentially 50 Caesars to ZSU in a month or so. Bourges factory now operating 3shifts, went from 2-4 Caesars a month to 8. https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/emploi/metiers/armee-et-securite/reportage-ca-fait-voir-que-la-france-est-armee-a-l-usine-caesar-a-bourges-on-est-fier-de-voir-le-canon-livre-a-l-ukraine_5671748.html Caesars plus BFISTs.... Yeeeeow

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-usa-handed-over-the-gps-guided-jdam-bombs-to-ukraine-bloomberg/ JDAMson the way, ER version too. Noice.

Article claims training on ATACAMS has already begun... (half way down) https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3673603-serhiy-naiev-joint-forces-commander.html

Is there a subtler distinction between DC and MC, but which goes to the core difference - DC is pre-determinative, dictating a distinct process towards an objective, where as MC is adaptive to the reality of both the objective and the unknowns of how to get there? Naturally you need a certain amount of both and as with all things there is danger in extremes of either one. Too much DC and you get the incessant useless assaults classic of the worst of Soviet approaches. Too much MC and your leading units can loose sight of the overall objective, to the failure of everything (IDF came close to that state a few times). Perhaps the question isn't which thought system is better but when and how to apply each in turn, to what degree and for how long. ZSU seems to have a culture that is both highly reactive and very focussed on personal initiative. This has been suppressed by Soviet doctrine but is pushing through under the relentless pressure of battlefield experience. NATO, for all the danger of Sacral Dogma Traps, has an inherent emphasis on adaptive development. There will always be those in any institution who take a dogma and invest in it, blinding themselves to its weaknesses. There's no silver bullets in life, to anything, but it's easy for people to fool themselvess that they've found an ammo box stuffed with shiny hollow points. With the ZSU and NATO, it's possible that NATO will actually gain more from the interaction in the long run, in the subtle but inevitable refreshing of stagnant mentalities and crushing assumptions. What will the ZSU gain from NATO, past large scale modern-day professionalization of their leadership corp? The ability to examine itself and adapt in ways that the AFRF are fundamentally incapable of? While NATO struggled in Afghan, that was a mission totally beyond the structural scope or designed intent of the organization and its component militaries. After the initial defeat of the Taliban it became a purely political war, which always ****s with military adaptation. With Ukraine its an existential war, with the absolute necessity of victory driving adaptation and exploration. For Russia, this war is political so the AFRF does not feel the brutal need to adapt, like it did in WW2 (yes, yes, I'm conflatng SU and RF) so it will never truly change to meet its opponents morphing process. In many ways the AFRF are not just fighting the last war, but will never not fight it. The ZSU can not only adapt and feels the need to do so, but with NATO adjacent and part of its culture it will inevitably adapt in additional ways such that Russian MoD will not be able to conceptualize a coherent response. As these are strategic, national level forces, once the ZSUs adaptability becomes enshrined in its institutional culture from top to bottom it will gain a permanent strategic advantage that Russia cannot and will not be able to track, match or counter. But the ZSU needs NATO for that transformation to happen at speed, consistently and on a long term basis. Any faltering in the process will give Russia the opportunity to apply such pressure that it forces the ZSU to again fight like Russia, which implies eventual defeat.

And probably gonna be a VERY muddy spring.

The converse of that might be fighting the Russians in the same way they fight, which negates any advantages and literally comes down to their level. Ukraine has mainly done this at tactical levels (hard to fight NATO style with Soviet hardware) but the operational side seems to show more "westernization"...with the mentality above being the real strength. BTW, is Detailed Command really a heresy if it's proven wrong with daily examples from an active Warzone? Heresies are essentially competing philosophirs, thought experiments with little grounding in reality. But we've seen actual Glorious Komrade Examples from the initial invasion itself of insanely exacting march orders with predictable Beautiful Results. So isn't suggesting DC as an alternative to MC and getting laughed out of the room is, at this point, based on facts on the ground? The ZSU has a strong and instinctive MC mindset, currently buried under some old Soviet skin but it's about to slough that off for good.

I think you just perfectly described my unique tactical niche... And we have a literal AAR to prove it!