G.I. Joe

I knew that the whole AI thing was BS.  Squirrels, genetically engineered highly intelligent squirrels.  Flight Lts Scrunchy and Fluffer Nutter will be remembered.  #10 Downing is in crisis mode, consultations with rodent community.  

Neat. Nice to see these two posing for a picture together.
Could not resist stealing this meme. 🙂
 

Ok, let me present The_Capt's theory of the trajectory of the tank.  And then maybe we can tie this one off and just wait and see.
1.  Denial - Western militaries will simply ignore the data from this war.  They will rest easily in the certainty that "we will do it better".  Then we will have a major failure.  If we are lucky it will be in training.  The idea of tanks and even heavy mech will hit a major and unavoidable wall that we cannot rationalize away.  This will likely be a long process after we spent billions on next gen tanks.
2.  Anger - We will try to protect the tank, just so we can keep it viable.  Layers upon layers of systems, R&D, new tank variants and just obscene amounts of money.  No one is going to tell us we can't use the tank!  Some may work for awhile but eventually the pressure against this capability will become too much.
3.  Bargaining - We will narrow the employment of the tank.  We will save it for very specific points in a campaign.  We will tie them to decision points in order to preserve the value of the tank.  Eventually pressure will continue to mount as someone else does what a tank is designed for, with something else for much less.
4.  Depression - We will push the tank back.  Someone will figure out how to put a big HE PGM round on a tank and we will employ the thing like we see in Ukraine today.  10kms back, a heavily armoured SPG lobbing shells in the space between infantry and artillery.  This weird work will continue until someone points out that we already have systems to do all this.  
5.  Acceptance - A sad vestige of another age, some bureaucrat is going to do the math on the cost/benefit of the old girl and time for museums. The worm will turn and every "visionary" will claim they knew the tank was done "way back in 2022".  Staff college papers will be written and the world will keep on spinning.
We gotta keep the rotation going.  I think we should have Canada bashing day based on that stunt we just pulled in Parliament as we hosted and celebrated a proud veteran of the Waffen SS.

Check out CMCW kids, copies available in the lobby!!

Said to be M1A2 in Ukraine.  Appears to have some of the latest upgrades, including the Low-Profile CROWS.
 

Never heard of that band before, but I really enjoyed that song, thanks for sharing.
When I saw the image I immediately thought of some 80s heavy metal music. 🙂
Apparently the pilot in the image is this handsome gentlemen named Vadym Voroshylov with the call sign Karaya. Who holds the rank of Major in the Ukrainian Air Force.
I don't have an Instagram account so I can't confirm any of this, I would like to hear what our local expert, @Haiduk on all things AFU has to say about this
 

That is an incredibly powerful image, sometimes one picture can convey raw courage better than words ever can.
Personally, I get "Last of the Breed" by Dos Gringos stuck in my head when I see this.
 
 
----
(PSA regarding Dos Gringos... fighter pilot bands can be an acquired taste, and that is one of the few of their songs that does not contain NSFW lyrics...)

That is an incredibly powerful image, sometimes one picture can convey raw courage better than words ever can.
Personally, I get "Last of the Breed" by Dos Gringos stuck in my head when I see this.
 
 
----
(PSA regarding Dos Gringos... fighter pilot bands can be an acquired taste, and that is one of the few of their songs that does not contain NSFW lyrics...)

Has the potential of becoming an iconic photograph of this war. Showcasing the bravery of individual members of the AFU, back when much of the world already wrote them off as having no chance of defending their country.
 
 

Excellent reply - better than some staff college students I know.  I would add that is also puts additional strain on the entire Russian military enterprise as they now have to worry about replacing what they have lost (they still have eyes on the bigger global game). 
And last but not least, it may give a level of freedom of manoeuvre for Ukrainian forces on the sea.  Even modest raiding and SOF capabilities could drive the RA nuts and pushing their naval capabilities back is nothing but good news.  My personal hope would be an amphib operation but I do not think that is under the tree for this year.
Back to a central thesis, this creates Ukrainian options while taking options away from Russia…and that is how wars are won.

What air defenses? ;D
Apperently, there's less and less of them. BBC was pretty quick to report the local (my hometown) events, so you may wanna check that out.
No air raid warnings, no nothing. Nothing is happening, as always. Just bavovna and smoke. Even the announcer at the train station skips the usual "be observant and careful, careful and observant" this morning. How come, I wonder?
 
ps: I'm okay, and the windows are fine, for now.

It's not a mist of suspicions....Musk has quite clearly demonstrated that he will take his own interests into account before any national interest. He has actively promoted the idea that Ukraine should surrender territory to Russia and that Taiwan should submit to the PRC. Elon Musk is *not* our friend. 

A major strategic implication is on escalation.  Recall at the beginning of this war there was a lot of concern about a Russian “red line”.  Putin dropped all sorts of threats and the info-sphere lit up.  We continually see Ukraine strike deeper, higher and harder into Russian territories - Crimea definitely counts in Russian books.
The question now is “ok, so where is the Russian red line?”  Some will say “there isn’t one”.  I do not believe that, however, it is clear that it is also not hair trigger either.  This speaks to the myth of Russian escalation dominance.  They do not own the ladder, we do.  
Now a concern is narrative and tipping points.  My sense is that Putin et al are really crisis managing right now.  Playing all sides as best they can.  To some the loss of these two ships in a high profile strike is a catastrophic loss.  To others it is justification that Russia is indeed standing on its own against NATO and the US.  How these strikes are playing out inside Russia is definitely something worth watching out for.  Second is tipping points.  I do not get the sense that “clear strategy” is on the menu at the Kremlin right now.  So if there is a red line it is probably blurring and moves around.  It is also likely very relative.  Hit another 5 ships, no problem…hit the 6th and hell breaks loose because…Russia.
And then there is a solid theory that Russia has run out of escalation room.  They have fired all the missiles.  They have blown all the dams.  Nuclear power plants are all upwind.  WMDs are a non-starter unless they want WW3.  What is really left in the chamber?  Mobilization?  Maybe but it would have to be national…all industry and manpower.  That is a big step and they have shown no indications of doing it, let alone being able to do it under the current conditions. What can Russia do now except make quacking noises and lob more missiles at apartment buildings?   Plant more mines?
This whole thing has a boiling frog strategy feel to it.  

These terms have caused pretty significant debate among western militaries, especially in Canada.  The issue is really one of identity and culture, which of course has come under significant scrutiny in the post-Afghanistan, post-Iraq era.  For some it is no doubt a bit of macho flexing, for others it is holding onto core identity for very important purposes.  Up front, I personally fall into that latter category - but also recognized people are going to have differing positions.  So to try and break it down more simply:
- The term "warrior" [aside: 'warfighter' is in reality an attempt at compromise on warrior and largely has no other point of reference], has been mal-adopted and appropriated into toxic sub-cultures within modern militaries.  Of this fact there is little argument.  The most recent scandal in the Australian SASR and many examples of a warped or toxic use of that term are well documented.  People adopt all sorts of crazy ideas as to what a warrior means and how they behave.  This has to do with the fact that a modern warrior concept has yet to truly evolve so people look at history which was an entirely different context (eg we don't scalp anymore).
- The actual term of "warrior" has deep roots within indigenous cultures around the world.  In many it was a class of citizen with a clearly defined purpose.  You can read a lot on this but the most common and prevalent definition was in line with "One Who Does War" on behalf of their people.  A person whose role within a society is the function of warfare.  In most cases it became part of a cast or class system.  In some cultures this was seen as a sacred duty-to-protect bordering on a pseudo public service.  The recent bashing of the term has drifted into colonial insensitivity in some cases as it really reads like "white folks screwed it up, so now all 'warriors' are bad" when in fact indigenous cultures have employed the concept for millennia and many, like North American natives, still hold it sacred.
- The term is important because it incorporates a key pole of the two-worlds problem.  Militaries are not armed humanitarian aid agencies, or slightly better armed police forces.  Some nations have tried to go that way but they tend to be geopolitical anomalies.  The role of any military is state sponsored and legitimized homicide.  Dress it up anyway one likes, call it "self-defence", "use of force" or whatever helps one sleep at night but the core role is "murder for effect.  The second a military culture, or the society that pays for them, forgets that reality very bad things happen. 
- Militaries that get watered down for various social or political sensitivities tend to do several very dangerous things: 1) They forget themselves. This can lead to significant collective shock when war actually happens and generations of military officers and NCOs have basically become bureaucrats.  When that culture runs head long into warfare it is never pretty.  I lived through such a time in the 90s and trust me it is really bad. 2) Societies go into armed conflict with eyes closed.  Sanitization of war and its consequences becomes very easy when one scrubs out what it actually means.  This can not only dangerously shape political calculus, it can create major flaws in military advice to policy.  The reality is no matter where you may be in the kill-chain, there is blood on your hands. That is a serious burden. Those that forget it can start to make very poorly informed decisions quickly.  3) You cannot order identity.  Troops in combat or preparing for combat are going to adopt an identity and culture that will provide them survival advantage and cope - find me a war where that did not happen.  Problem is that if leadership does not define that identity, troops will do it themselves and sub-cultures form.  Those sub-cultures can become dangerously toxic very quickly.  So bottom line is, ignoring warrior reality comes with significant risks.
- Many like the term "soldier" better.  Feels more civilized.  The term it self actually comes from solidus or coin and refers to mercenaries.  The major historical difference between a solider and warrior is that a soldier stops fighting when they don't get paid.  Warriors keep fighting because they don't need to get paid, they believe.  There is an element of righteousness (and I do not mean in the religious sense) in the role of a warrior. Righteousness being a higher ideal held sacred (all war is sacrifice..."to make holy") by the people who sent you to fight for them.  Soldiers by definition live on a more transactional contract with society.  These are deep and important distinctions that often get lost in the noise.
- To your point, "machoism".  The problem we have with "warrior" is that we never actually define it.  It gets tossed around because it sounds cool but as an identifier we do not unpack it and then teach it to people when they enter the service.  It is all over the place, the US Army uses it all the time:  https://www.army.mil/values/soldiers.html.  Likely the closest I have ever seen is the US Army's Warrior Ethos:
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
https://www.army.mil/values/warrior.html
Not bad, but not quite there either as it lacks definition of role as an extension of American society and elements of righteousness.  
So without a clear definition, the term gets hijacked into a macho "ra-ra" tag line.  The reality is far deeper in speaking to balancing our two worlds - war and peace: home and away.  As military we live within and are part of our own societies.  I have kids, bills and go to the same grocery store.  I watch the same shows and play the same game.  But that is only half of my existence.  The other side lives out in a place of conflict and warfare.  In many ways I did not get this until after my first war.  When I got home I realized that part of me would always be in those hills (and then years later, in the desert). 
As I see these young guys fighting and dying in Ukraine, I see them all fighting and dying in the tradition of the warrior.  They are the Ones Who Do War on behalf of their people.  To them it is more than a tag line and will be for the rest of their lives.
So we definitely need to develop a modern definition and concept here and build a concept that not only better fits modern society but resonates.  If we, as modern militaries do not, then we will get hijacked.  I have already been in discussions where terms like "aggression" are being scrubbed out of our ethos by academics and civilians.  If a modern military cannot define itself, someone is going to do it for us.  And they will very like not understand the two-worlds problem.  We are The Ones Who Do War and we need to get much better at explaining what that means in 2023. 
 

Alright, I’ll bite (just this once) in case clearing it up once and for all might stop it being posted 3-4 times a day…
What does this even mean?  Amongst all the thoughts you post (which are honestly sometimes pretty hard to untangle) this one seems to come up more often than anything else.  It’s an analogy, right?  ‘staring down Putin’?  What is it actually an analogy for?
The article in your own post points out that “The United States thus sought to leverage intelligence in a manner to convince allies of the imminent threat and, to a lesser degree, dissuade Moscow from acting, while signaling that it had deep insights into the Kremlin’s plans.”
So the US basically told Russia they knew about their plans, told all their allies, told Ukraine and mobilised the alliance we see today to implement unprecedented sanctions against Russia and unprecedented financial and military support for Russia’s intended enemy.  I’m honestly not sure what other reasonable measures could have been taken at the time.
What else do you mean by “stare Putin down”?
Oh and, fair warning: if your response mentions B-52s or a no-fly zone I will be forced to conclude that you’re either trolling or basing your suggestions on video game experience, at which point I’ll apologise to the rest of the board for bringing it up and duck out.

Excellent summary.
All this and Putin still decides, "Ah, what the Hell, I'm doing it anyway"  
What could be done that wasn't? Put 3 US divisions in Ukraine before he attacked (not happening)? Doing anything AFTER he attacked, like US airpower to try to neutralize Russia's military, or massive Tomahawk strikes into Russia itself, is just insanity (both ideas have been floated by various people). 
There's really no good way to stop someone like that.
Dave

No it wasn’t and I don’t think you need to.  It is a stupid narrative proposed either by opportunists or fools.  The time for “staring” was between 2014 and 2022 and we failed on that at every turn across the entire political spectrum.  The reasons were pretty simple - you can’t just stare, you have to be ready to back it up, and no one in the US or entire western world was going to do that for Ukraine.  The costs were simply too high on too many levels. This entire post-crisis “tough guy” narrative is a pretty oblivious ploy to try and pin the blame for this war on one side or another.  We all watched Russia doing dirty in the region and basically did nothing…in some cases we made it worse.
”But air power!”  Ok dingus, how much do you think positioning that amount of AirPower in the region would have cost?  Air power is not a magic wand, it is a massive military capability one has to surge, stage and keep at readiness levels, costing billions to do so over the timescales the “staring” would have occurred.  The bill for massive overmatch of the Russian air forces would have been (and frankly still is) very high.  Let alone if we really had to do it, and completely ignore escalation risks. Same people would be quacking about “ridiculous government spending in Ukraine” that is would have taken to actually set up “staring” - unless it was their guy in charge, which is a whole other problem.
 One is not an expert “strategist” because you can regurgitate some spin-lines dreamt up by a political ad agency. You are fool being played because it is so much easier to let someone else do all that hard thinking and make this whole complicated world so simple.  And before anyone weighs on on left or right…both sides do it so let’s just not get into that.  Best thing you can do for yourself is get a library card, read a lot of history and a wide range of political sciences/military affairs.  Do the hard work for yourself.  

Frankly,  you're very naive about this. 
1. Russia is not occupied. There's no population crying out to know whays true,  what's going on outside, if there's hope.
2. They have the internet and, controlled as it us,  they can access BBC.com any time they want. They've had very wide access since D0.  
3. External media has nothing on the RusGov control and manipulation of domestic media. It's a fart in the face of a hurricane. Russian domestic propaganda is relentless,  pervasive, omnipresent and backed by legal authority, criminal prosecution and determined political direction. 
4. UK is not at war with Russia. There's no military or political imperative to inform the Russian population about anything. Investing in BBC WS is pointless. 
5. Russian population is not going to be swayed in any shape,  way or form by the BBC world service. They don't care about western narrative or values. 

I personally think it's mostly a combination of diplomatic and bureaucratic inertia. Never underestimate the delaying power of "getting all the Is dotted and all the Ts crossed".

yep, being aware of inequities in society is gonna make us go broke.  Much easier to teach that slavery wasn't so bad.  Trying to understand the real continuing impact of slavery on our society is too woke.  You go Florida!

This is just getting sad. 

I don't know...anything that makes war harder to romanticize has to be a positive on some level in my books.
I guess I have to count that as a silver lining to the possible looming obsolescence of fighter aircraft. 

I don't know...anything that makes war harder to romanticize has to be a positive on some level in my books.
I guess I have to count that as a silver lining to the possible looming obsolescence of fighter aircraft. 

Wake me up when it happens. I'd love to take credit for this idea.