G.I. Joe

Cluster munitions are terrible.  And UKR needs them.  These are contradictions and are both true.  What else can ya say?  RU is causing way more deaths every week than errant cluster munitions will over the entire future.  And like has been pointed out here already, RU is sowing the entire front, hundreds of kms, w thousands and thousands of mines yet not a peep from anyone.
Meanwhile, I suspect NATO & UKR are doing everything they can to find ways to overcome mines.  HOpefully there's a lot of gear being sent that we're not hearing about.

Mulroney and Chrétien were made of sterner stuff than Justin...

Oh if only an election were around the corner.  Fits into his M.O. of vacuous moral high ground platitudes.

Today we have 500 days of full-scale war and a birthday - 50 years of Valeriy Zaluzhnyi

One has to remember that military systems are highly redundant and over-engineered (yes, even Russian ones).  So if the UA is effectively eroding the RA system of defence we are going to be seeing different indicators of this. Also we need to be watching for stuff we are not seeing but should be.  So stuff like:
- Russian logistics and artillery losses that lead to observable shortfalls
- Lack or shortfalls in RA c-moves.  Or RA c-moves that look like scrambles or dyke plugging (these lateral shift cause enormous disruptions)
- continued denial and loss of AirPower assets.
- RA loss of high profile and high value systems - EW, ISR and Engr
- Indicators that RA morale is flagging - desertions and surrenders.
- shortfalls in the RA medical support system
All this (and more) need to add up over time in order for the RA system to buckle.  Once it fails though it has to fall into a lower energy state in order to sustain and avoid a cascade failure.  We normally call these fall-back positions.  
Corrosive warfare is not just attrition warfare.  Attrition warfare is a grinding of the front end of a system until exhaustion sets in.  Corrosive warfare needs ISR and precision to hit the entire operational system at key nodes of capability - you are essentially de-constructing their operational system.  You need to do this at a rate that those nodes cannot be re-built or shifted.  It takes time do this and compared to rapid manoeuvre and annihilation seems like it may be going nowhere.  However, compared to real attrition warfare which can take years it appears it may happen much faster in the contemporary context. (ie months)

That’s what closed loop control systems look like right up until the moment they fail catastrophically, particularly if maintaining the control loop depends on an expendable resource, like fuel or mobiks.  Everything looks like it’s going to be ok, then the control propellant runs out and you pancake in the desert.
As has been pointed out many times both here and elsewhere, Ukraine has only committed a small fraction of their newly raised forces and have been steadily corroding the C2 and artillery resources of RU from a distance.  As Russia runs low on reserves, holes will develop and Russia will have to either let Ukraine break through or shuffle troops around, making new holes to exploit.

So how are we defining “gains”?  If it is by ground re-taken, yes, very limited.  If they are measured by strain and erosion of the RA I suspect they are doing a lot better.  The question is “will the erosion be enough to force collapse?”  And right now we do not know.  In fact we do not even know if offensive warfare still works as we knew it.  We could be at stalemate or this could just be a how offensive warfare works now.  
If it is stalemate, well ok then the conflict will likely freeze and have to end by other means.  Everyone will point fingers as to why the thing has gone stalemate but the most likely reason will be that we have entered into an era of Defensive Primacy - not the first time this has happened.

Yeah, that is a defence that does not expect to be attacked, if ever I’ve seen one. 

When I was in the Army DPICM was *just* being fielded in any significant numbers. The original idea for usage was to fire it at a target of opportunity - a mass of armor forming up to attack in front of you, but more likely a mass of armor/vehicles in the second echelon that was forming up to exploit or continue the advance, in order to halt that advance through lack of support. We didn't have unlimited supplies so it was planned to be used when it could be most effective, usually in a Time on Target, Battalion FFE.
Since we expected in Europe to be completely on the defensive as the Soviet Army advanced into West Germany, unexploded munitions were not really seen as an issue, since they would be the Soviet's problem, behind their lines. (of course the pie-in-the-sky projection was that all civilians would have evacuated west in advance of the Soviet Army, and we know that wouldn't be the case - not everyone anyway.)
In Ukraine with a more static, back and forth front line, this is much more of a concern, for obvious reasons.
Just a little background from the olden days 🙂
Dave

Some good points but also only half the story.  I would buy into this line of thought if we had the same framework of inaction. “(Or refuse to)”.  We in the West have a very bad habit of pointing fingers and passing judgement on “bad actions” but we also tend to quickly grab the remote and change the channel when our own inaction causes immense suffering - Rwanda anyone?  Syria?  
The only real thing we can rely on that is not solely “opinion” is the law - which in reality is a floating point of agreement at best; however, it is what we have to base some level of objectivity upon.  In this case the use of cluster munitions is not against the law of armed conflict (obviously with all the “proper military use” provisions).  Further neither party involved in this current situation, US and UA, are parties to the cluster munitions treaty.  
So unless other Western nations want to try and extort a forced acceptance of that treaty by withholding other military aid to Ukraine - which frankly in the middle of an existential war is one helluva dick move - while at the same time conveniently ignoring the consequences of pulling that support (ie inaction), then beyond making poopy faces and trying not to think about how fast we would likely abandon that same treaty were we in Ukraine’s position then we are where we are.
If Ukraine did start using chemical weapons or dropping napalm on civilians then we do not need an opinion, we have the LOAC to point to and say “hey that is illegal”.  Which then raises the spectre of support to an unlawful war…something Iran and China appear to have no problems with.

If this was anything but a war of national,  cultural and societal survival, I'd understand the concerns. But it is.
Anything that can kill Russians quicker and in more numbers shortens the war.
The longer Russians are in Ukraine  the longer more Ukrainians will die.
The future daily cost of UXO is nothing compared to the current daily cost of soldiers and civilians killed. 
Ukraine needs to Kill & Maim as many Russians as possible right now. We've got a munition that can do that? Send it. 

A solid point on PGM.  DPICM was really a better way to distribute lethality before PGM.  With PGM a few rounds can do the damage of many dumb, even DPICM.  However, what we do not know is the ammo situation of PGM in this war, nor that of dumb rounds either.  I doubt this decision ( if it is indeed not just a rumour) was taken on a whim “Oh hey, that’s right we got all those DPICM rounds” *slaps forehead*.  I suspect that this decision is an offset to another development, shortfalls in PGM ammo most likely.
So What?  Well the calculus is clearly between bad and worse, and they have gone with bad.  The terrain in the break in battle is already highly contaminated so this is fairly incremental risk at this point - I.e. happy rose cheeked Ukrainian children will not be frolicking in these fields for about a century regardless of UA DPICM or not.  So in order to keep the momentum of the grinding a hard decision was made…and here we are.
One thing this war has demonstrated is that when facing the harsh realities of long duration high intensity conventional warfare a lot of idealistic and aspirational ideas we had before the war have become strained.  The “quick clean weekend war” was the first one.  Facing existential conflict the dirty fact is that every nation on earth will likely abandon principles for interests and survival given enough pressure.  War is once again a race to the bottom.  Something to keep in mind on the whole unmanned debate. 
 

https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_conflict_war_2022/ukrainian_army_mounting_1953_soviet_naval_2m-3_turret_on_flat-bed_kamaz_trucks.amp.html?fbclid=IwAR0GOi69Csf7MhkmnBopjEL7CVA_0b0Iue5luWtzTZp-_XxxGD6HrdFZgIk_aem_AZxl570X9EiO_Z096KBS3fOIKSo81EMuQgc6Gjg6S7rPQA4nwL19Hwalv0l6_MMzQAY
 
One more for Battlefront to model. 

Pardon my words, but the balls on this man to venture to Snake Island….for those who can’t see the video,  Zelensky visited Snake Island, leaving behind wreaths to honor the fallen. Did so by boat.
 

The experiences I have encountered over my long years, from the middle of the previous century, have taught me that there is no such thing as “not possible.” The problem, for example with making something “idiot proof,” is that idiots are so damn inventive that they are always able to find a way to circumvent the “idiot proofing.” Anything that is designed by humans can be defeated by humans!

Of course the air force guy goes star wars over nice, proper, land-based LOTR 😀

Do you know what the biggest threat to Ukrainian civilians is? . . . Russians.

Grand Admiral Zaarin's coup attempt against Emperor Palpatine, maybe?
(And yes, I know that's old school Legends timeline material...)

Exactly like hoping the goblin king can overthrow Sauron.  Probably better off since would start dark side civil war, but ya never know.

So Prigozhin's run on Moscow was just a larp about.

The two of you have two narratives -
The Russians are savages who will stop at nothing to destroy Ukraine.
And
The West is sitting around and do nothing while the first one happens, and will continue to do so no matter what.
So if these are true…why hasn’t Russia simply used nuclear/chemical/whatever since day 1?  Why is this war even still happening?  Is Ukrainian resolve and resistance an effective deterrence to strategic nuclear strikes?  
If the West is so useless and, clearly ready to let Russia do whatever it wants (and you can come read justifications of this right here on this thread)…why do we even still have this thread?  Russias are genocidal savages who are being deterred from escalation…by what exactly?  Because we certainly know it is not the bumbling western powers.
Of course if this is the case then why are we spending billions to assist Ukraine?  Symbolism? Boredom?
Look, if you guys want to go bask in narratives that call for bloodbaths and holy crusades/WW3 there is a big ol Internet out there that will tell you exactly what you want to hear.  
If you want something that resembles a grown up conversation, stick around. But if you are advocating that we all jump on whatever crazy train that seems to float your boat right now: nope.
What is it gonna take for the West to directly intervene in this war?  You do not want to know.  And frankly this thread won’t matter if that happens because a lot of us will already be dead.

The Ukrainian Air Force releases their own compilation video of sorts
 
Forbes have used the dated kill boards to piece together some info on the episode where the Ukrainians took out multiple Russian aircraft in short order over Bryansk oblast - https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/07/03/a-ukrainian-patriot-missile-crew-shot-down-five-russian-aircraft-in-two-minutes-and-possibly-forced-the-kremlin-to-rethink-its-tactics/?sh=75c2b4a41a5b

Range bubbles for AD systems seem weird compared to ATGMs for the reasons stated here (LOS issues, climbing against vs descending with gravity), but also because of target behaviour.

Compared to the time of flight, a ground target is essentially static. It might move 10m, or even 20m - heck, maybe 100m if it's boosting it down a highway - between launch and impact, but that's about it. Even if you lose lock, the target is going to be pretty near where you saw it, so the seeker only has to look there. For most practical purposes, compared to the range, the target can be treated as stationary.

Aircraft-as-targets are different. A Stinger SAM bimbles along at about 700m/s (although that will depend on the flight profile, but let's go with that) out to a range of about 8,000m, giving a flight time of 10-12 seconds. A Ka-52 can jog along at about 300km/h (~100m/s) and an Su-30 moves at around 1,000 km/h (250 m/s, or double that if the pilot is bricking it). Over the flight time of a Stinger, then, either a/c could be between 1 and 3km away from where it was when you launched, which is a somewhat tricky broken-LOS problem. And if that weren't bad enough, it really matters whether the target is crossing, advancing, or retreating relative to the firing position.

Also, theoretically, the engagement envelope of a Stinger would be a slightly squashed dome because physics; it just won't go 8,000m straight up. But in practice it's a significantly squashed dome because the engagement envelope has to take into account the fact that the target might have moved 1-3km from where it was at lock-on-and-launch. So, for example, a target 7,000m straight up is theoretically engageable, but by the time the missile got up there the target would have moved well beyond the range envelope.

ie; range envelope >> engagement envelope, in some non-intuitive ways.

Granted that helicopters typically fly a lot lower and a lot slower than jet a/c, so in principle you could have an anti-helicopter missile, and a different missile specialised for engaging aircraft. But operationally that'd be a frigging nightmare. Life on operations is already hard enough without having to rummage around in your golfbag looking for the right club whenever a target appears and you might only have seconds to identify it and engage.

The KA-52 compilation video could be just as it describes.... but we know RU loves exaggerating and misinformation.   I give equal weight to those being recycled training range videos.  And possible attacks on Ukr decoys.  We know those are a thing and it would not be surprising to me that Ukraine is using decoys or mockups in some way against the helicopters.