G.I. Joe

I call BS on this and frankly it is dehumanizing Russians to an unhealthy level. Sure, a lot of the RA KIA are criminals and excess human capacity, but every KIA has a mother. Many have wives and children.  My point here is not to have sympathy for the Russian soldier, they signed onto an illegal war and paid for it.  I do not even propose sympathy for the average Russian who may have lost a loved one. 
My point is that all war is personal and we likely now have millions of Russians who are taking this war personally.  These are not robots, they are people. And people do not forget personal stuff easily. They do not frame it as "policy".  War is a garden of grudges, and the ones about this war are in full growth. 
So while we in the West may pretend like it is all political, it really isn't. And the effects of this war will not be contained solely to a political arena.  Finally, politics is personal too.  We are going to be a very long time to renormalization with Russia. The status quo is broken...get used to it.

Who is predicting military victory?  And your counter-offer is to somehow suggest the elimination of national leader...oh yes that is far more reasonable.
First rule of war is to understand the war you are in.  She in not convincing the Russian of Sweet FA by framing this thing as a "policy" issue.  My point is that this entire narrative is what is wrong within the western world right now. This is not some unfortunate divergence on a policy point, it is a war...we are in it.  It is a limited war.  It is a proxy war. But right now if Russia went "whoops, sorry" and magically pulled all its troops out deluded western politicians thinking along these lines would convince themselves it is ok to normalize with Russia the next weekend.
It is narrative that reinforces the idea that once this "unpleasantness" is over we can go back to a status quo.  A status quo that has sailed away into the history books and does no one any favours by trying to cling onto it.  We are currently negotiating a new status quo, violently.

I disagree.  Ukrainian genocide is a given.  In ‘22 it would have likely been cultural with a dose of brutal oppression.  After the last two years, I do not want to think about the level of vengeance that would be visited upon the Ukrainian people if Russia somehow prevailed.
As to Western collapse…nonsense.  You have pinned NATO, EU and Chinese expansion on this one war.  To the point the entire western world depends upon it.  This is simply not true.  First off, we could win this war and still see NATO and EU fold up, they were under intense political pressure before this war even started.  I think it more likely we will see western powers rally closer together in an Ukraine losing situation.  Some may decide to jump but a dangerous Russia and China are a “united we stand” mechanism, not an “every one for themselves”…and I will raise you Sweden and Finland to prove it.
As to the “Fall of Western Democracies” if we lose in Ukraine…again utter nonsense. Western voters are not absorbed by this war. In fact western ennui and apathy is the major challenge in keeping up political support for this war.  If Ukraine falls and bad things happen, western powers will embrace refugees (for awhile) and quickly change the channel, like we have for a long list of “troubles over there” for the last thirty years. Western democracies are more likely to tear themselves apart over a myriad of internal issues than a war most North Americans can’t find on a map.
Oversubscribing this war is bad as undersubscribing.  Because if you are framing this war as existential for the entire western world well then risking a full on Russian collapse or even nuclear war makes perfect sense…but it is factually wrong.
So, you may “know” but you clearly do not understand.

Fine with that, so long as it gets dragged out.  We got incredibly lucky back in 89-91.  The Soviet Union folded up quickly but did so into pre-existing states.  Where there was no coherent pre-existing state we got war (see Yugoslavia).  A Russian collapse does not have that safety net, so it needs to be gradual. A fast boil collapse has every chance of having very bad things happen, and (frankly bafflingly ignored by some on this forum) in the modern age bad things do not stay neatly within lines on maps.

You know, you kinda show your true colours by referring to Kharkiv as Kharkov. Also interesting take on an offensive that very quickly bogged down and is now resulting in considerable Russian losses.

False M777 howitzers

And one of these already done it work

I wonder how much of such stuff mistakingly counted by Orix team as real losses.

In previous year they hit mostly power distributive sites and transformer sites of power plants. But turned out Ukrianian power specialists and State Emergency Service  managed to reapir damages very quickly and substitute destroyed transformers and other equipment - we got alot of this stuff from differnet countries. 
So likely Russian generals decided previous startegy turned out ineffective and dicided to hit objects of generation. This is an indicator Russia has no illusions more that they can grab Ukriane and use our power resourses, but on other hand power units are too vulnerable and can be repaired - after the war we have to rebuild most of thermal power plants. But this is also good sign - less coal and oil fuel generation - it a plus to ecology and opportunity to small nuclear power plants and solar/wind plants. 
But now becvause we lost most of our "maneuver generation" and forced to import electricity, our government has rised cost of electricity almost in 2 times, now we will pay 0,108 $ for kilowatt. 
Concerning today' strike here it statistic:
35 Kh-101/555 - 30 shot down
10 "Kalibr" - 4 shot down
1 "Iskander-K" - 1 shot down
3 Kh-59/69 - no intrceptions
4 "Iskander-M" - no interceptions
47 "Shahed" - 46 shot down
Total 35 missiles from 53 and 46 UAVs from 47 
 

Poland joins the club. 🙂
 
 
Faces of some of the Ukrainian Air Force pilots which will be flying Ukraine's F-16s.

I think AIM-120s are practically a given, the big question is which version. The F-16s being supplied are all F-16A Block 15 MLU versions, roughly equivalent to a current U.S. Block 50/52 C/D model in capabilities and AMRAAM capable. AMRAAMs for Ukraine have also been confirmed:
Defense News: Ukraine to get AMRAAM weapons under $1 billion deal with RTX
Air and Space Forces Magazine: As Ukraine Prepares to Get F-16s, US Provides AMRAAM Missiles
Which version is unconfirmed, but the second article mentions hints from Ukrainian officials that the advanced AIM-120D variant with a 160 km or greater range may be in the works. Relatively few air forces (Canada among them) have received the D model to date, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Hopefully OPSEC will be good about the exact air to air weapons provided and the timing of the F-16s' arrival in country...let it be a surprise for the VKS.

I will admit I have often wondered how this war might have been different if Ukraine had been able to complete the An-71 "Madcap" program on its own after the breakup of the USSR (admittedly an implausible scenario, since it had a Russian radar)...

This is good news! AEW&C platforms could be a big factor, especially if they arrive fairly soon.
I keep hoping against hope that part of the delay was someone quietly completing integration of the Meteor on the F-16A MLU (if I'm not mistaken, the original intent was that the MLU would include Meteor capability, but I may well be wrong). Highly unlikely, but it would make things interesting...

It all depends on whether Ukrainian personnel have received training or not. Flying the thing should be easy enough for an existing pilot, as it's no combat aircraft. Likewise, maintaining the aircraft should be reasonably easy, in comparison to those snowflake fighters. But using and maintaining the AWACS systems? I dunno, but I suspect it'll take longer than a couple of hours in a classroom to get proficient. Multiple months to learn the systems. Maybe years to get expert.
So, unless the training has already occurred, I can't see these being operational soon.
There is one way around this of course. Swedish personnel could be part of the package as, erm, on-premises trainers, so to speak.
Don't get me wrong, still good news and very generous from the Swedes. Just don't expect them to pop up next Monday 😀    

I think AIM-120s are practically a given, the big question is which version. The F-16s being supplied are all F-16A Block 15 MLU versions, roughly equivalent to a current U.S. Block 50/52 C/D model in capabilities and AMRAAM capable. AMRAAMs for Ukraine have also been confirmed:
Defense News: Ukraine to get AMRAAM weapons under $1 billion deal with RTX
Air and Space Forces Magazine: As Ukraine Prepares to Get F-16s, US Provides AMRAAM Missiles
Which version is unconfirmed, but the second article mentions hints from Ukrainian officials that the advanced AIM-120D variant with a 160 km or greater range may be in the works. Relatively few air forces (Canada among them) have received the D model to date, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Hopefully OPSEC will be good about the exact air to air weapons provided and the timing of the F-16s' arrival in country...let it be a surprise for the VKS.

Exactly. If an Su-34 has to break off its attack run and jettison its payload, it's still a "mission kill," even if the aircraft is unharmed.

I will admit I have often wondered how this war might have been different if Ukraine had been able to complete the An-71 "Madcap" program on its own after the breakup of the USSR (admittedly an implausible scenario, since it had a Russian radar)...

Exactly. If an Su-34 has to break off its attack run and jettison its payload, it's still a "mission kill," even if the aircraft is unharmed.

This is probably right on the money, but I would put a fair bit of value on breaking up bombing runs. Even if the bombs themselves are cheap, disrupting the currently more or less unimpeded bombing runs would be far more useful to the Ukrainians on the ground. Kills are not likely as you say unless the Ukrainians are able to 'ambush' targets. We have seen some pretty ingenious work from the Ukrainians so far on this front so who knows. 

Simply painting the offending jets with radar would probably be enough, no one is going to stick around to be shot at. I suspect that simply the presence of F-16s in combat will have value for that reason alone. 

We have seen stranger integration efforts so far in this war, so you never know...

I personally just wish the Meteor to be able to hunt. From all accounts the platform is truly terrifying. A constantly accelerating missile that can constantly pull high Gs at insane range that even if it misses -can turn and reacquire you- coupled with the biggest no escape zone I think to date on a missile. It is legitimatly terrifying. 

Fantastic news from Sweden as well, AEW&C capability is something Ukraine has been lacking and would really help with the coordination of F-16s as well as their AD network in general. (It amazes me that the VKS has been struggling so much against a country which lacks some pretty important fundamentals of air coordination / combat. Makes you think how badly they would do against the might of NATO airpower with all its toys)

The later generation AMRAAMs from my knowledge have a range measured in at least a hundred miles or so. Obviously effective range might be shorter but that should in theory place VKS glide bombing runs within a reasonable engagement window, granted at a potential risk.

My knowledge on BVR air combat is limited, but I understand that you have to fire high up in order to get the upper end of effective ranges on long range missiles. Which means F-16s flying high which will be a considerable risk. It is perhaps no coincidence that we are seeing a renewed Ukrainian focus on Russian AD, especially their high end search radars, A-50 control planes and of course S-400s. 

I would point out however that in theory the Russian jets are also pretty exposed on their glide bombing runs, for they also need to fly quite high in order to drop them at sufficient distance. I figured there is a reasonable chance that F-16s will be able to achieve intercepts without having to get suicidally close to the lines. (We should not underestimate Russian AD despite their proclivity to shoot their own planes down and be hilariously incompetent)

What might be more of a guarantee is that VKS pilots will have to bear in mind the threat potential of F-16s intercepting them, adding another layer of complication to their already considerable list of potentially potent Ukrainian AD and their own AD shooting them.  In theory, simply the presence of F-16 flying near the front might encourage a lot of cancelled bomb runs, which is something that will certainly have a tangible effect on the strike rate at the very least. 

This is sadly an inevitable potential outcome if AD is used against Russian aircraft, who seldom cross the lines to perform strikes. It should be viewed as an acceptable risk. 
This is honestly a very good point. Ukraine has had to go from an entirely soviet modelled force into something between that and NATO lines in the last ten years. Its not been easy and plenty of sources refer to the issue that the older generation of officers and certain elements of the force are still very much stuck in the soviet ethos of doing things. Even with the younger generation of officers thinking differently, these sorts of structural changes can take a long time to push through.

Reforming an army on such a scale is not easy in the slightest, especially when fighting a war of survival. Despite all this Ukraine has shown a truly flexible and innovative approach to in cooperating advanced NATO technology into their force.  We have already seen such craziness such as HARMs being launched from Mig-29s and BUKs carrying sparrows. There is clearly the skill and willingness for clever improvisation and I dont see going anywhere soon. 
BVR missiles are going to surely be the focus given the current nature of air combat over Ukraine. From what I remember reading up from Ukrainian pilot sources, Russian pilots learned very quickly not to get within short range missile range and instead stand off with their BVR capability advantage together with superior avionics. Stand off seems to be the current name of the game and its one where the VKS currently enjoys a major advantage. UA pilots cannot do much else than attempt to lure VKS pilots closer and otherwise fly low and cautiously. Its a testament to the skill and tenacity of the Ukrainians that they even have airframes flying at this point given the disparity. 

What they need more than anything is a capability equaliser on that front so presumably the best AMRAAMs possible will be desired. Its a shame that the Ukrainians are unlikely to get a platform that can launch Meteor though, for that would truly have the VKS soiling itself given its hilariously dangerous capabilities. Not to say the latest AMRAAMs are not dangerous of course.  They may not have the range of some Russian BVR missiles in service, but I suspect their lethality is significantly higher when packaged with something like F-16 with its fantastic avionics suite.

I think AIM-120s are practically a given, the big question is which version. The F-16s being supplied are all F-16A Block 15 MLU versions, roughly equivalent to a current U.S. Block 50/52 C/D model in capabilities and AMRAAM capable. AMRAAMs for Ukraine have also been confirmed:
Defense News: Ukraine to get AMRAAM weapons under $1 billion deal with RTX
Air and Space Forces Magazine: As Ukraine Prepares to Get F-16s, US Provides AMRAAM Missiles
Which version is unconfirmed, but the second article mentions hints from Ukrainian officials that the advanced AIM-120D variant with a 160 km or greater range may be in the works. Relatively few air forces (Canada among them) have received the D model to date, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Hopefully OPSEC will be good about the exact air to air weapons provided and the timing of the F-16s' arrival in country...let it be a surprise for the VKS.

https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2024/05/militart-stodpaket-16-till-ukraina--ny-formaga-som-starker-ukrainas-luftforsvar-och-stod-som-moter-ukrainas-prioriterade-behov/
 

My main hope for supplying western fighters is they'll give UKR the ability to deliver a plentiful and relatively cheap precision strike weapon.  At the same time, I hope they can chase the VVS out of the air, denying them this kind of strike.  I think glide bombs are a given but I do wonder what sort of other weapons are going to be supplied with the aircraft, hopefully AIM-120's
 

Never forget that one of the constraints on adoption of new equipment is the Ukrainian military itself.
It is undeniably true that deploying the full suite of goodies that marks out advanced Western militaries, from soup to nuts, logistics to BDA, would make the Ukrainian armed forces incomparably more fearsome than they already are.
It is ALSO undeniably true that wholesale adoption of the full suite of goodies that marks out advanced Western militaries etc etc in one fell swoop would utterly break the force, indeed any force, that tried it. It would break them if they tried it in peacetime, let alone attempting it in the middle of an existential war. It is mildly implausible that Putin would step back, saying "oh, fair play, we won't do anything for the next 18-24 months while you figure out how to use, employ, and maintain all this new stuff. Give us a call when you're ready to go again?"
Keep in mind that every time you argue for comprehensive and sudden re-equipping. Either you're arguing for a fantasy, or you're arguing for a Russian victory along the lines of Arthur C. Clarke's short story Superiority.
There is, of course, a middle path - upgrading as fast as practical whilst maintaining a credible and capable force. And there always is, and always will be, debate about whether the process is proceeding too quickly or to slowly. However the answer is never at either end of the spectrum.