G.I. Joe

So how does $150B sound?  Worth more than the entire Donbas itself.
https://diplomacy.state.gov/exhibits/diplomacy-is-our-mission/the-marshall-plan/#:~:text=Under the Marshall Plan%2C the,nations between 1948 and 1951.
Now that commitment is on us in the West, we start going soft on it, hey fill your boots.  It likely will not matter where the lines on the map wind up if we do not reconstruct Ukraine on a scale the matches or exceeds post-WW2.  A shattered Ukraine will be picked up by China or fall apart and then what was the entire point of our support in this war?

We have yet to see the Ukrainians behaving that way so far and a Ukraine that wants to be in the EU and maybe NATO can't get away with much of that without blowing their chance. Grabbing the odd dacha or taking petty revenge is not worth it relative to that. The incentives have changed. 

Oh the thread will survive, it must until this war is over and then it needs to be archived somewhere.  Now whether some members join John Kettler in the outer-darkness is another question.
My view is that this thread is a collective analysis and assessment of the war and its conduct.  It is crowd sourced from open source intelligence and brings together a very broad set of skillsets and points of view.  I would argue that it is also one of the most objective/apolitical, thorough, and accurate exercises of this type on the internet right now.
However, our efforts must adhere to that analysis and assessment focus, we can and will drift on occasion into areas that are "less than helpful", but this must not devolve into an argument of one point of view over the other - no one can win an argument here - these are not Reddit games.  One can provide useful analysis, assessment and information, and yes, even opinions.  We are not going to solve  anything here, that is not how these things work.  All we can do is remain objective/apolitical, thorough, and accurate as we try to separate mis/dis information from reality as this thing unfolds.
An opinion, however, differs from a position.  Opinions, informed by education and experience lead to sound judgement, which is very helpful.  A position is a dogmatic and entrenched set of beliefs that very often defy reality - that is less helpful and is better served elsewhere in this big wide Internet where every position possible is out there for you to rage against or join in: 
Go nuts.
There is a standing list of topics that we will simply not solve here, nor should be waste our time trying to.  And by rolling hard into these topics all people do is generate noise, while we are looking for signal.  Nearly 1400 pages in, these flare ups happen at intervals - normally in a lull in activity in-theatre - and I suspect is more an emotional outburst as things get pent up.
Hopefully we have it all out of our systems now and may move on.

Hokay. 
1. Syria is a civil war,  waged by its autocratic government against its own people. 
2. Ukraine is a war of survival, led by the democratic government against an invading fascist regime, and with the overwhelming support of its own people. 
3. The Kharkiv op is not an aberration, it is the harbinger of worse to come. Yup Kharkiv isn't war winning. But it sure as heck is an inflection point. The war is not going to stay the same -  Russia no longer has the momentum, men, political coherence or operational adaptability to determine the course of events. 
4. Ukraine already went through an interminable, never ending warfare since 2014 -  in fact this is still that war but its now in the decisive phase, and its very much the Ukrainians making the decisions that matter. 
5. Two "past their prime" superpowers? Ehhh... Wut. 
Ok, Russia is one. Check. 
Who's the other, exactly? The one with the amazing weapons and wherewithal to send them halfway across the world? The one with the insanely accurate and immediate  ISR capabilities?  The one actively engaged in a long term project to build a moon base?  
Or maybe the other one,  which however rancorous its decision process has managed to provide billions of dollars in direct aid to Ukraine,  absorbed 5,000,000 refugees in 3 months without raising a sweat,  has weathered all of Russia's  gas threats and is set to get through the winter regardless, has vastly greater military power than Russia and,  as part of an alliance with that other power,  admitted two new,  heavily armed and highly  strategically placed nations, and which the prospect of Ukraine joining it was what set off this whole awful mess in the first place? 
That author is a political hack,  not an original  thought in his head and, at bedrock level,  a twit. 

“His crew were the only people he knew in his unit” - that is not small.  It means that his unit was not integrated beforehand, or he was an augmentee who was not fully integrated.  Either way it points to at least one unit where you are talking about half-built teams, which means there is a risk they will fight the same way.  Here is where the NCOs are key, they become the integrators of replacements or in a hodgepodge rebuilt unit they quickly pull it together. This matches observations of a poor or non-existent NCO corps in the RA.
Nothing definitive, and could easily be a an anomaly or one-persons perspective.  But it does line up with the overall qualitative problems the RA has been reported to be having.  Cohesion is key to morale, and morale is key to sustaining a will to fight.

Newest LivemapUA update🙂

Sorry for off-topic, but that's a helluva reenactment! 
 

I was born in summer of '81, so I'm just barely young enough to count as a Millennial...or barely old enough to count as a Gen-X'er, but I think 1980 is more commonly used as the dividing line than '82. Either way, I'm just old enough to remember losing sleep over nuclear war as a kid in the late Eighties.
This reminds of once back in '01 when my best friend and I were in a college course together and he mentioned being attracted to a young lady in one of his other classes who was slightly older than he was (i.e. about my age). As an example of how she was a bit older, he mentioned how she had talked about growing up in Czechoslovakia and having been afraid the U.S. would attack them back in the Eighties during the Cold War. I looked at him with a mixture of surprise and bemusement and said "what, don't you remember being afraid the Soviets would attack us?" He didn't... I think that might have been my first "that makes me feel old" moment.

Spent the day at our 82d Airborne Association Chapter "Rumble" (Annual picnic) . Guest speaker was Marty Schweitzer, from the McCrystal Group, former ADC of the 82d, among (many) various other things. He provided a few thoughts on Russia's invasion of Ukraine. He's had apparently a bit of contact with the Russian Army over the years.
His evaluation: 
1. "They are terrible. Really terrible"   (meaning their competence).
2. They have a lot of artillery, always have, and they use it.
3. Their maneuver elements are "absolutely awful" at tactical maneuver ops.
4. If they ever get to where they are going they can't fight well
  -- because --
5. They have nothing resembling western army' professional NCO corps. Their NCOs are NCOs in rank/name only, have almost no authority, are discouraged from exhibiting initiative, and even if they could, are not given the whole picture of the op - objective, assets. In his opinion this more than anything else cripples them. And the UA has quickly learned that by taking out as many officers and HQ units as possible, everything grinds to aa halt.
None of this is any revelation, but another analysis by someone with experience that confirms a lot of what has been seen and said here.
He discussed aa a few other things, but the rest were not really relevant to this discussion. Except maybe one. He spent time on the Joint Chief's staff. He said that when there is a crisis somewhere, the president (any president) has two questions. a) where are the carriers right now?, and b) how soon can the 82d get there if they have to? 
Other than that, it was a day of good camaraderie with a bunch of former paratroopers of all ages and really good food, on a spectacular afternoon.

Dave

I was born in summer of '81, so I'm just barely young enough to count as a Millennial...or barely old enough to count as a Gen-X'er, but I think 1980 is more commonly used as the dividing line than '82. Either way, I'm just old enough to remember losing sleep over nuclear war as a kid in the late Eighties.
This reminds of once back in '01 when my best friend and I were in a college course together and he mentioned being attracted to a young lady in one of his other classes who was slightly older than he was (i.e. about my age). As an example of how she was a bit older, he mentioned how she had talked about growing up in Czechoslovakia and having been afraid the U.S. would attack them back in the Eighties during the Cold War. I looked at him with a mixture of surprise and bemusement and said "what, don't you remember being afraid the Soviets would attack us?" He didn't... I think that might have been my first "that makes me feel old" moment.

I was born in summer of '81, so I'm just barely young enough to count as a Millennial...or barely old enough to count as a Gen-X'er, but I think 1980 is more commonly used as the dividing line than '82. Either way, I'm just old enough to remember losing sleep over nuclear war as a kid in the late Eighties.
This reminds of once back in '01 when my best friend and I were in a college course together and he mentioned being attracted to a young lady in one of his other classes who was slightly older than he was (i.e. about my age). As an example of how she was a bit older, he mentioned how she had talked about growing up in Czechoslovakia and having been afraid the U.S. would attack them back in the Eighties during the Cold War. I looked at him with a mixture of surprise and bemusement and said "what, don't you remember being afraid the Soviets would attack us?" He didn't... I think that might have been my first "that makes me feel old" moment.

If you want to go really olde schule, Napolean used balloons for obs. At the Nile, iirc
Edit, and a few years before that - with enhanced optics!
https://www.centennialofflight.net/essay/Lighter_than_air/Napoleon's_wars/LTA3.htm

I was born in summer of '81, so I'm just barely young enough to count as a Millennial...or barely old enough to count as a Gen-X'er, but I think 1980 is more commonly used as the dividing line than '82. Either way, I'm just old enough to remember losing sleep over nuclear war as a kid in the late Eighties.
This reminds of once back in '01 when my best friend and I were in a college course together and he mentioned being attracted to a young lady in one of his other classes who was slightly older than he was (i.e. about my age). As an example of how she was a bit older, he mentioned how she had talked about growing up in Czechoslovakia and having been afraid the U.S. would attack them back in the Eighties during the Cold War. I looked at him with a mixture of surprise and bemusement and said "what, don't you remember being afraid the Soviets would attack us?" He didn't... I think that might have been my first "that makes me feel old" moment.

Not in any way a large contingent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Army_Balloon_Corps#Establishing_the_Corps
but in case some may not know about their trials in the US Civil War, here is a link Knowledge of where the enemy is and with what is a never ending problem. 
 

Kinda comes off like a millennial just 'discovered' that nuclear war is a thing.  Boomers and X'ers grew up with that gun to the head basically since birth - "Climate change? Sure if you want to wait around for a century.  Lemme tell you about how mankind can really kill us all in a weekend, son!" 

Correct.
In real life you send a cheap (means no fancy zoom/thermals optics) drone (or rather drones) first. Once it (they) is(are) down you know the limits of enemy big AD/EW stuff. Next you take drones with fancy optics and put them at a safe distance (for example above your own territory) to higher altitude and observe from there the suspected spots.
If nothing you have two more options:
Go low and slow (terrain hopping makes it difficult for enemy to discover and hit the drone in time but it not easy thing to do for various reasons) Often you do not need video feed, a photo would suffice. So, you take FPV drone - it is difficult target so most likely it will send you at least one photo of the target before death Combination of two above - fast drone flies low to a certain point then jumps to higher altitude taking photos of the surroundings. It will be taken eventually but for the enemy it will be too late. This is how you recon heavily defended defensive position.   
It is true right now, but our knowledge and tactics are evolving. In the near future the one with better understanding of drones capabilities, more flexible drone industry and better drone tactics will win.

Anyone else thinking of the potential to turn a large container ship into a really nasty Q-Ship? (For the Honor Harrington fans out there, almost a real life analog to HMAMC Wayfarer and the other Trojan-class Armed Merchant Cruisers if you merge that idea with a reboot of the Eighties Arapaho program to convert container ships into escort carriers).

Anyone else thinking of the potential to turn a large container ship into a really nasty Q-Ship? (For the Honor Harrington fans out there, almost a real life analog to HMAMC Wayfarer and the other Trojan-class Armed Merchant Cruisers if you merge that idea with a reboot of the Eighties Arapaho program to convert container ships into escort carriers).

Here in Vancouver, DHC-2 Beavers are still a common sight, with Harbour Air and other seaplane operators flying them out of the inner harbour on a regular basis. There's no mistaking the sound of that R-985 Wasp Junior (same engine as the Stearman PT-17, BT-13 Valiant and OS2U Kingfisher).

"P.S.  I had a UH-1 fly over me last weekend.  Forest Service around here still uses them.  Is it just me, or is the thump-thump-thump of its props kinda fun to listen to?"
Not if you were in Vietnam.

for sure not but people do vote with their feet and both China and Russia see more people voting to leave for the West than they see folks from the west immigrating.  When the gov't can just take away whatever you have or allow their cronies to do so with no legal repercussions it isn't just the freedoms but the sense of a rule of law.

Heh, I guess that depends on what scale of history you are using.  Post-WW2, post WW1, maybe.  Before that almost every state on the planet was authoritarian to some extent, the democracies of the US and France were largely experimental.  On a long history look we really have a single point of data - the current era.  Democracies and societies that were more internally dynamic have always been a very small minority and many times they failed and spiralled back into authoritarian regimes (e.g. Rome).
China has sustained multiple global power empires for over 2000 years and largely on the authoritarian model.  As did Egypt, Persia and empires all over the planet.  There is far more historical evidence that humans are attracted to authoritarian power than anything else.
So I would argue we are living either in the beginning of new era (thousand points of light) or an anomaly, and it is far too soon to tell.  My sense is that we fear uncertainty more than anything else and when “dynamism” turns into uncertainty we run back into the arms of a central pack/herd leader - history does back that up.
The subversive warfare I am talking about is all about projecting uncertainty and letting it do damage to us internally.  There is plenty evidence of its success, and even strategic gains by those that employ it.  Uncertainty create confusion and chaos inside our cognitive and conative frameworks and they then leverage that vacuum to push their own interests.
You do make a solid point though, neither China or Russia has been able to offer an attractive idea that makes their gains stick - and that is probably Russias biggest loss in the war; any chance to try and make one.  My bet is that if they keep us disrupted and unstable, their idea may be “certainty we cannot offer”.  And as things have been unfolding the shine was definitely starting to fade on us in he west as well - misadventures like Iraq and Afghanistan really did not help.  I hope that Ukraine acts as a slap in the face and glass of cold water to the west - this is what happens if we remain divided, this is the result of us allowing ourselves to be divided and subverted, this is what happens if we do not push back before a war starts and thousands die, billions wasted.
I do not speak of what happens inside the wire often but I can say the needle is moving and we are starting to see things in a different light on all of this.  We will pivot to China but it will not be solely a conventional military deterrence equation on the table, that would be a major mistake.  Nor can we assume our “attractiveness” as a natural gift, this is a contest of power, ideologies and certainties, and we should never forget that.
The second we do - more Ukraines will happen.

What's interesting to me is how much both strategies are designed to subvert the supports that maintain US hegemony and how badly they perform at it:
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-views-of-china-reach-historic-highs-in-many-countries/
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/ratings-for-russia-drop-to-record-lows/
The danger for both Russia and China...that's fast becoming the reality...is that they don't provide a model that is more attractive than the US/EU because their aims are simply to install a cruder, more restrictive hegemony for themselves.  Therefore, their interactions with likeminded nations don't turn into countervailing coalitions but simply accommodations based on mutual and typically short term interest. You can see that, not all surprisingly, mostly clearly in their relations with each other.
Perforce, they must act like insurgents on the state scale. They act as spoilers, subvert the order of things, put grit in the machinery and try to inhabit (in China's case) parts of the global economy that allow them to exert control. But this has limits. Western oriented states have resilient systems, they are easy to influence but generally hard to subvert outright. And all the while, the clock ticks for China and Russia given the profound demographic problems they face.
I get your take and in many ways I'm sympathetic to it. But over all, I think the historical record comes down pretty heavily on the side of the socially and economically dynamic nations over the episodic pulses of authoritarian states.
 

I seriously hope you are going to write that book.
The prospect of conflict with China scares me. With Russia, well we turned a blind eye towards Russias ambitions but at the same to we overestimated their capabilites. China though... I don't know how you military guys have been perceiving things over the last two decades. In industry but also in science, we have been underestimating China. At the same time we know that they want to be the dominant power by 2049. I, too, think they will learn from this war. And if they finally make a move (for Taiwan, for instance), things will get nasty unless we have somehow learned a few lessons ourselves and made ourselves less dependent on others. I highly doubt there can be sanctions like against Russia. The current energy crisis will hurt us but we will manage somehow. Disruption of trade with China will directly cause our economy to implode. Yes, China is dependent on us, too. But if you think Scholzing is bad... well, you have seen nothing yet, I assure you.