FlemFire

Yes it's alright. I already got an explanation from a resident grognard how assaults across open ground sans air supremacy or any air cover at all into the entrenched teeth of minefields and pre-sited artillery zones is not at all suicidal or even irresponsible. Another informed me that it was all a matter of probing and that they would soon probe their way to a weakspot. I took this as eschewing common sense. After all, probing by fire is a thing, but doing so via entire mechanized battalions is not a version of it I've seen before. While you are all educating me, please inform me how 40-year old Ukrainians being conscripted off the streets are going to win a war now. Can you name the last conflict won operating with this strategy? Just as a reference point.

You misunderstand a lot of things here. We didn't push Russia into it -- we pushed Ukraine. That's the whole point. Russia is acting in its own interests and their response could be -- and was -- predicted. Wars do not fall out of the bloody sky. Many things have to happen for them to occur, and childish kool-aid drinking nonsense that pits this as some sort of Good vs. Evil crap might be suitable for the superhero Marvel fanboys, but it isn't suitable for analyzing international relations. Just a second ago someone tried to seriously inquire when and where the West should step in for human rights and decency, while the West's boy toy Israel is massacring civilians on the daily. Yes, I'm sure the United States and Friends mean well. That's why the U.S. lied to its own people to start a re-construction of the Middle-East, right? They're totally the good guys right? And yes, I will tell you how it is. Who has actually been correct? You or me? Last time I was in this thread I asked how is it even remotely feasible that Ukraine militarily wins this war. The response I got was, "Ukraine already is." Sure are taking their sweet time, yeah? Thousands dead and now outcome-independent people cheer on thousands more for, frankly, some bizarre bloodlust to avoid reality. How is it possible that a forum of grognards cannot see the war for what it is? The Ukrainian counter-offensive evaporated. They didn't take a solitary inch of anything worth a damn, but they criminally massacred their own people in modern day Pickett's Charge reenactments. The sanctions? Didn't work. Not only did not work, but clearly more and more countries are circumventing them. Political isolation? Failed. Moral isolation? Failed. Prestige hit? Yeah, probably a little. Is Russia being in China's corner a good thing? Oh China isn't a superpower so this question is not worth pondering. Of course it isn't worth pondering, right? You think a country conscripting grey beards to go stand in trenches before a 20:1 artillery disadvantage is a winning move. Half the people in here still think more American monopoly money is an actual difference maker. Questions of international tension concerning a very large and very nationalistic nation might as well be a conversation happening on Mars compared to that.

Wake me up when something provocative happens. After all, what did happen the last time some provocative occurred? The U.S. dogwalked Ukraine into a shredder. Twice. I'll ask again, are you willing to be incinerated over Finland? Lot of talk in this topic, not a lot of backing it up, though. BTW, not sure if you know this, but a form of this sort of 'relationship' already exists in a couple nations around U.S.'s enemies. For Russia, the most obvious is Armenia. Unless you have some other good reason for U.S.'s second largest "embassy" being in that little country, or why this diplomatic structure looks exactly like a gigantic listening post.

China is a superpower. Any discussion otherwise is fruitless with you. I asked you a 'simple' question and skirting it in this manner is unproductive. There shouldn't be discomfort in answering. Would you be willing to put your argument to the test and station nuclear missiles in Finland and the Baltics? Are you ready for you and your family to be incinerated over Riga and some Finnish swamplands? I doubt it. Nominal attachments aren't worth the paper they're written on. Russia cares about Ukraine because they believe its position, people, and geography of considerable importance to the health of their state. These other nations mean nothing until they act in a manner that changes that dynamic. Almost like, again, it's simple math. You put anti-Russian threats in your "free to piss off Russia" nations and we all pay the piper.

WWI, a completely pointless war dragged out on emotions and unnecessary allegiances. The math was so simple on this one that even today people can't even understand how millions ended up dying over nothing. Afghanistan's existence was secondary, it was more an empty field in which global powers played to control a borderland. If anything, this demonstrates that all great powers will gladly bat smaller nations around like tennis balls. And the Mongols? Were the Mongols not explicitly clear in their intentions? Pray tell, if Mongol ambassadors stride into your little kingdom demanding submission, what was the smart move? Do you still clap for the bravery of those who resisted them? Or do you think wow, that was very, very stupid and got very many people killed? Not to be too apropos, but there were leaders who flaunted their power at the Mongols, and then when reality came to the fore they fled out and left their citizens to be butchered. Be careful of hitching your horse to an outcome-independent party, yeah? And as you clearly understand, this rule of reality applies between superpowers just as well: there's a reason why the U.S. fought an entire, massive war in Vietnam yet did not step foot in North Vietnam. And did China's invasion of Vietnam fall out of the sky, or did it have to do with Vietnam involving itself in the domain of a Chinese ally? If you find yourself bordering a very powerful nation, then every foreign policy measure taken is going to have extra costs attached, tangible or otherwise. If the Chinese offer Mexico a trillion dollars to base fast strike capability in Juarez, do you think Mexico goes "Wow that's a great deal!" Or is there one big giant elephant sitting in the middle of the equation? Speaking of the Chinese, they currently do not have to concern themselves with Russia. This is a nation explicitly building for war who has two key deficiencies: consistent food supply and a base of energy (oil) to use. Russia can provide both. Do you think putting Russia into China's sphere made this world safer?

There is no need to wait for "After this war". Smaller nations do this every day and have done it every day for hundreds if not thousands of years. If you're in the sphere of influence of a major power, don't do things that piss off that power. Very simple math.

The same West that is cheerleading Israel carpet bombing civilians?

Deserving support and thinking out the consequences of that support are two very different things. Unfortunately, all forms of public policy are captured by the needs to propagandistically capture the emotions of the citizenry who don't know any better. The Ukrainians had a Georgia-esque deal on the table in Ankara. They went with the West instead. Now this talk of Taiwan and China? Absolutely daft. No perspective at all on the bigger picture.

So the Russians got a massive drone advantage paired with a massive artillery advantage in a largely unmoving, anti-maneuver war.

Maybe when these leaders go on T.V. and speak they're in actuality lying. Just a guess.

It's criminal negligence to be in a military uniform commanding the lives of 1,000s of men and not input "thick minefields" into your "what do Russians do on defense?" calculus. To be frank, any discussion of that offensive as being worthy is akin to people who think Pickett's charge was the right idea, just poorly executed. I'll just never understand it.

I imagine most people who haven't let emotions melt their brains have made this observation. The required effort here hinges largely on putting the ball in the Russians' court and letting the weaknesses of their military doctrines do the rest. Engaging in offenses into the teeth of Russian defenses, or engaging them in attritional warfare are losing efforts. Maybe you'll lengthen the war, but you're going to lose in the end. Per a previous post, 90% of the casualties are committed by artillery. In another previous post, an analyst believes Russia is dumping 275+ artillery pieces onto the front every single month, compared to Ukraine's 20+. Let's throw in the 120+ monthly Russian T-55's/T-62's which are being used in support artillery roles. That's potentially up to a 20:1 firepower deficit, not including the massive firepower found in the form of missiles and drones which also tilts heavily in Russia's favor. Ukraine should have given up territory to invite Russian advances and pounced on them in turn. The offensive Ukraine launched, though, ultimately does not surprise me. Attacking across open ground with zero air supremacy in this day and age? Just a little bit of criminal negligence, that's all. You have to understand, though, that in the West its military thinking hasn't been tied to winning wars for about 60+ years now. It's more focused on fighting them, which is a key difference, one heavily attached to the massive amounts of $$$ corrupting the armed forces. It says a lot that the Ukrainian armed forces would've done infinitely better under the thinking of some hardnosed Afghans than these corrupt generals who always have one foot in the door of the nearest Lockheed, GD, Boeing, etc., and who dedicate more resources to emotional propaganda than to tailoring their fighting forces to the realities arrayed before them.

Not sure what you're faffing on about here. Not a single thing you said has to do with first-strike capable assets being operated by Western forces over Russian territories. Note, this war started because they didn't want those things in a bordering country, but suddenly they're going to be chill with it, for real, as it flies over Russia? We're literally looking at the result of a redline being crossed: they invaded Ukraine at enormous cost to themselves. Now, why did they do that? Because they don't want an anti-Russia alliance right next door that is, in effect, bulging right into their main territories. The fact I have to explain this being the ultimate redline when this entire conflict exists because of the threat of it is bananas. Is anyone paying attention in this thread? What are you even talking about people staying up thinking about this. You put NATO forces in the field and this whole thing is over. Things will rapidly escalate and the nukes will fly and we'll all be dead. The ghouls who framed this conflict will mostly be fine, hiding in bunkers and what not, but us normies will be ash or killing one another in the ruins. This is simply not an appropriate resolution to the uncomfortable fact that, all of a sudden, military thinkers have thrown all common sense out the window as they wish under-trained conscripts to instantly develop military doctrines and blow out entrenched Russians despite being outgunned, outmanned, and having zero air support. All I see reading this crap is Robert E. Lee and George Pickett had the right idea, they just didn't probe enough, or they just didn't have fight hard enough, etc. How about no. How about attacking into the teeth of static defensive positions with zero air support has been a bananas idea for 100+ years now and not all the propaganda in the world is going to magically change it. And now I gotta read Aztecan death fantasies over ending the world because people can't bring themselves back to reality.

Newsflash: if there's a nuclear exchange nothing matters.

I would never risk myself or family getting incinerated on behalf of eastern Ukraine and every single person who has two brain cells to rub together thinks the same. Your bloodlust and suicidal tendencies exist only on paper.

This isn't Syria. You won't have a no-fly zone. You'll have air-to-air combat between air forces, all within range of Russia's anti-air systems mind you, with fighters and bombers inevitably crossing borders and having their intentions misread, which will rapidly escalate into something worse. Russia isn't going to be very chill with Western aircraft zipping around their airspace and within minutes-distance of striking strategic assets.

Yes. MOUT is amazing in SF2 and the primary draw of the game for me. It simulates the action well enough given the engine's limitations w/ urban elements. I actually think getting good at SF2 will make you much, much better at the other games. It wasn't until I nailed down the MOUT-elements in Shock Force did I realize how lackadaisical my tactics were in the WWII ones.

This is, btw, what I meant earlier by "absurd" responses. You took what I said and immediately stretched it out to the most extreme BS possible, comparing it to moon landing conspiracy-thinking and eventually being more forward in calling it "crackpot." So, quite plainly, everybody who doesn't agree with you is a crackpot, right? They're all just a bunch of dummies, right? And then I sit here and have people coming out of the woodwork telling me I'm the one being snide...? Do you have Russia's battleplans in your lap? Do you have a microphone into their war room? Did you wiretap their red telephones? Where do these certainties even come from? Think tanks? Two seconds ago you said you got into it with a Marine over WMDs in Iraq. Should I unfurl a giant scroll of think tanks who said there were totally WMDs in Iraq? Because I bet that Marine sure did. You argument boils down to you "know" what Putin is thinking, and what he's thinking is really stupid, therefore Putin is really stupid and Russia is totally borked. Man, I totally get that from an emotional standpoint. But from a logical one, nobody who "studies warfare" should ever say anything is a certainty when it comes to an outcome of an ongoing war.

So it's a conclusion. Other people have other conclusions. In your own words, you "took a stab" at it and you "think" Putin presumes xyz. This is called speculating. I don't see the controversy in saying we actually do not fully grasp Russia's internal thinking or that their army/intel ops are so superficial that grognards on the internet can plot it out by opening a newspaper or putting an ear to a think tank. I brought up George Kennan earlier. He was the preeminent source on all-things Russia for the Cold War, but even he himself ultimately concluded you can never really know a foreign nation's thinking or what they intend. There are entire schools of international relations quite literally built upon this unfortunate reality. Are we going to seriously imply the likes of Morgenthau, Waltz, Niebuhr, Thompson, Carr etc. were just wasting their time, and we can in fact just divine a country's intentions that easily and thus there is no need for all this gamesmanship? I mean, make your argument, fine. Maybe you're right. The point is "maybe," and I don't think I deserve chastisement cause you to talk as if you have spies in Putin's inner circle and listen in on what those goons are up to because I know for an actual fact you do not nor do any think tanks nor do any YouTube bloggers. BTW, this goes the same in the other direction. Someone brought up I think MacGregor who routinely makes claims with 100% certainty. It's all the same basic fact: none of us are in those rooms, whether it is with Zelensky, Putin, Biden, etc. This is all speculative and tearing me a new one for participating from a different angle is absolutely unfair.

I am not in the diplomatic roundtables, but I mentioned earlier that I would be hardpressed to end this conflict with Ukraine still out of NATO. There are concessions to be made for this result, and that would be the eastern territories and maybe giving Russia back its frozen assets and whatever extra crap Putin can flaunt before his own people. Diplomacy means giving him his own 'win' to show off, that's kind of the crux of compromise anyway. If I'm Ukraine, I take that deal, personally, and not only take it but consider it in fact a win to go home to. Submitting the territories via negotiation and just assuming a cease-fire/peace is not really an option to me. Russia wants Ukraine defanged and hapless, and its pursuit of this goal leads to an almost tautological conclusion which is that Ukraine has to in fact have an army and a substantial one at that. I mean, this is the stupidity of the war, is it not?

Some of Russia's industries have virtually collapsed. If these industries were of military concern, we'd be in agreement. But they largely are not. Dunking on consumer goods is actually a good way to drum up discontent internally, but insofar as war effort is concerned the impact is minimal. It's not like, say, the loss of car production just vanishes into thin air. The slack is being pulled into war production. In democratic nations this might cause a stir, but unfortunately Putin rules Russia with an iron fist and people who complain suffer from bad cases of defenestration. I mean, the rest... I'm not sure if I've made myself clear, but I can say it again: Russia is not a competent fighting force. The ugly flipside of this is you don't have to be a competent fighting force to win a war. An even harder pill to swallow is that fighting competently against an incompetent force doesn't even mean you'll win a war. Like, I'll totally grant everything you want there. You say Russia basically sucks at everything and they can't do anything right and they're running out of men, etc. Alright. I mean, if that is the case, then Ukraine shouldn't sue for peace. They should in fact keep grinding until Russia collapses internally. How's that for common ground?

Why is it that when there is disagreement, it's just me "telling everybody they're wrong"? You characterize it like a disagreement is a one-way street. How is this fair at all, seriously? By definition, we're having a discussion. I don't mind but others treat it like I'm napalming villages here. Even crazier when these disagreements are not exactly that big to begin with. I don't understand why you keep saying I don't support this position. My evidence is that Russia went after Ukraine with 40,000 men some of which carried parade equipment and riot gear. This tells me they expected Ukraine to rollover. 40,000 men does not strike me as a force capable of capturing Kiev in an actual fight anymore than the 200,000ish total invasion force seems even remotely sufficient to occupy Europe's largest country whose populace hates your guts. What I see is they wanted those eastern territories that they quickly annexed and are now occupying. I mean, either this or that, it's an act of aggression and an attack on a nation's sovereignty, which is basically the system we have all agreed to. I don't know if the extent of Russia's objective set is exactly all that important when the fundamental starting point is the same.

I agree, forecasts in 2022 predicted Russia's economy to virtually flatline. I myself actually assumed it would and thought Russia was in absolute dire straits when they militarily screwed the pooch. If they were convulsing like they were in 2014, there's just no way they could have a timetable to adjust militarily in Ukraine. I mean, I think that's just a fact, albeit one in an alternate universe heh. But their economy didn't buckle. Hence why forecasts change. I don't think the impact this time around has been worse when the forecasters peg Russia for greater growth than Europe in 2023. These are still forecasts, though, so who knows. Forecasts of 2022 were completely wrong. Forecasts of 2023 could also end up completely wrong. But I'm just saying what they say, which is that Russia is clearly not wilting like they should be. I actually don't know how much of an argument is to be had here beyond just -- gulp -- giving those dirty economists their due. I'm not sure what economic discussion of the occupied territories are supposed to concern. I never disagreed that the status of these territories is currently poor. That only makes sense after they've been in conflict for years and have had outside subversion 24/7 from a now-invading neighbor. Lost territory is simply that, lost territory. It's just not good and I don't see just cause to argue otherwise. Providing they keep those territories, Russia will make use of them in their own way. Ukrainian territories being enveloped into Russia's general socioeconomic strata isn't exactly like oil falling into a bucket of water. As for the conclusion or I guess my position, it's not negotiate "now." It's negotiate when you take the initiative. Two different things. Diplomacy and negotiation require compromise, and compromise is best had when you have bargaining chips. I said this a long time ago, or at least implied it, but today's statesmen leave a lot to be desired. When I see both sides making irreversible claims, it gives me a bit of WWIII-is-coming concerns. Both sides are failing to leave the door open to compromise and that genuinely scares me. Anyway, right now, Ukraine is not in as good of a position as it was in Fall 2022. Say Russia goes on some other major offensive and Ukraine eats their lunch a 2nd time? Negotiate. And in that case, very likely negotiate from a stronger position than Fall 2022, in which case the ongoing strategy would be a win. But I just don't think there's any fundamental common ground here when you use language like "how the RA is going to turn this around." The Russians are occupying territory they want. What is it they need to turn around, exactly? They seem very content. So I guess to answer your question, if I get into the Russians' head, I don't change much of anything. I let convicts exchange their lives for contacting Ukrainian positions and simply ramp artillery expenditure until the cows come home. If I'm operating from the assumption that Russia seeks conquest, then I declare war and roll in the rest of the army and see if NATO blinks while I prepare my nuclear bunker for a 20-year vacation. The simplest point to defeating Russia is economic. I mean Russia collapses pretty much instantly if you target the economic throughputs it now goes through. The difficulty arises there because it would require the West to get ugly with the Asian markets and, to some degree, the rest of the planet in general. There are very powerful interests within those markets who would love to see the West self-immolate to battle Russia, btw. However, that is a much, much larger discussion and one I'm too tired to have now.

Nobody's forcing you to accept anything FWIW, while I disagree with you here, I do think it could very well be the case of conquest now. Fair enough. Russia can hang themselves in maneuver warfare. They can't hang themselves sitting in trenches bombing the hell out of you. If you roll the clocks back a bit and actually look at NATO's military doctrine, and more importantly the USA's back when Russia was their focus, there's a pretty vested interest in meeting the Soviets in open plains. There is not much interest in getting into artillery slugging matches with them. If you flip through old Cold War analyses, Russia's artillery stock comes up repeatedly. Now look at the equipment given to the Ukraine. All these items gain tactical advantages when used in open plains. I just saw a clip recently where a number of Russian tanks bumbled into a minefield. They just had a loss of what looked like two or three tanks. To mines. What do you think that looks like if Ukraine invites Russia into that sort of war? Yes, you have to give up terrain to do this. As mentioned before, when you draw out Russia's advances they risk cohesion loss. I saw this myself in Georgia in 2008. Russians bumbling about everywhere against an almost nonexistent enemy. They just don't have the discipline and command of Western armies. But you don't need either of those things to put, as some people say, 40-year old artillery shells into a cannon. And, still granting this notion, I think even 40-year old shells exploding still do more or less the same thing to human bodies. Unending* brute force. It's not like we're going to see Russia dumping 1,000,000 soldiers into Ukraine. But they can dump material into the front pretty much forever. This is why I don't like the West's response of sending bits and pieces. Either help Ukraine win the war or don't. I don't like half-measures.

If people just post random nonsense or be mean for the sake of it I just ignore it. He's been snide, but he has fronted an argument. If he didn't I wouldn't respond. I personally don't think many of my arguments are actually being discussed. You may have noticed, for example, that I didn't even bother with much of his post. There's nothing really to disagree with about the conduct of Russia's military in 2022. But I'm not talking about 2022. Not to pull a Godwin's Law, but I can strong, strong 1942 Mannerheim-Hitler vibes when I read some of these posts. Where people are just looking at Russia and laughing and not really paying attention to the details. Russia is on a war footing 1-year out and their goals have fundamentally changed. I'm quite spooked at what they have up their sleeve but everyone else seems to already be prepping the parade grounds in Crimea. I just don't get it It's not. There's a reason why Zelensky is wanting more tanks and gear. I mentioned this awhile ago, but the response of the West does not seem like arms expenditure made to win a war. It feels more like arms expenditure to flush stockpiles and start running capital through the war industry. Right now, the USA could dump hundreds if not 1,000+ Abrams into Ukraine. They could have done that months ago. But they're not, so I get this vague sense that the West is not so certain of itself as people here seem to be. Don't worry, I have to travel soon and then you guys can return to snorting Ukrainian glory stories straight off the T-72s Yes, if Russia is fighting the war you think they are fighting then the IC is not being used correctly and they are moving slowly. This is the convenience of arguing strawmen.