G.I. Joe

Whoa there!  So I have taken a few days away because this great Russian offensive has taken on all the glam of watching a blind goat wooing a virgin armadillo.  So we are talking about that 7km "blitz" and a couple UA TD outfits bailing, right?  I mean did I miss the fall of Lviv or something?
So, I disagree that this is "strategic", hell it probably is not operational but we will see if the RA can actually advance more than 20kms before it runs out of gas.  We have been here before.  There was the terrible Izyum offensive that was poised to "pinch off and crush the UA defenders" in some sort of Failais Part Deux, which petered out to whatever that melanoma looking thing has become.  Then the imminent crossing of the S-D River, which turned out to be a catastrophe.  And now the Russians take 7km and we are at the End of Days?
"Imminent collapse" - how many times does this need to happen before people get the point?  The RA has already collapsed twice, strategically and operationally - even if I grant that the UA may have "collapsed" tactically at Popasna.  First was the RA collapse of an entire front in the North, we still remember that part right?  That was likely the turning point in this war and was a collapse by any standard.  Then we have seen another operational level collapse around Kharkiv, my understanding of military theory is that when you are the invader and have withdrawn until the enemy is at your border, things are not going well.
So the real question here is "can the UA do operational offensive?"  And the jury is still out to be honest.  That operation around Kharkiv (a much higher priority than the villages in the Donbas) demonstrated that the UA can re-take ground and pretty quickly.  How well the RA was dug in, how the UA did it and is it repeatable are the unknowns.
We have talked at length about the Russian problems defending a line approximately the same length as the Western Front with a fraction of the troops needed. The line density is something like 100 men per km with what they were showing, and that is stuffing the line with replacements straight from the recruiting depot.  I don't care what the Russian grandfathers were good at, there is a force-space reality here that is going to be impossible to make airtight without another 1 million men and the equipment to arm them.
Meanwhile Ukraine has a 3 month head start in mobilization, I personally think that the UA has more combat ready troops than the RA at the moment and everyday they are getting more with better equipment.  While Russia continues its downward spiral economically and militarily.
As to post-ceasefire (if it happens - Ukraine is signaling the other way, and losing a few dozen kms in the Donbas is likely not to break a nation who had guns within range of its capital) - we had better be ready to pony up and re-build Ukraine a la Marshal Plan, or there was no point in the sunken costs.  Re-building national infrastructure will likely sustain the Ukrainian economy in the short to middle term, in the long term private industry will show up because they are a greedy bunch and this is a market filled with US greenbacks for reconstruction.  We need a functional and well defended Ukraine very badly right now because it will mean the "global order" won this war, and we are willing a pay a lot to ensure that happens (or should be).  We need a bright and shiny Ukraine as a demonstration that the Western based global order still works.  This needs to be a lesson for Russia, and more so for China that we will not let the pen that writes the rules go easily.  If we fail, then we deserve what happens next.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/19/nato-finland-sweden-republicans-russia-00033749
Republicans are on side for Swede-Fin expansion, and the $40 billion for Ukraine just passed. U.S. support looking rock solid for the foreseeable future.
 

I think you underestimate the value of the smaller, "weaker", countries that are helping, especially including yours.  Russia's immediate neighbors may not have the economic strength or as much materiel to offer, but they're all helping enormously to keep Russia isolated and with enough implicit border threat (whether real or imagined) that it can't just pull absolutely every last man, vehicle, and airplane and put them in Ukraine.  Not to mention the ability to provide safe staging and training areas for incoming equipment.

As I said some pages ago, unfortunately the whole situation depends on USA completely - from UE, those who are helping are too weak, and those who aren't weak are not helping.

Great thread from the guy who wrote Bloodlands, which is basically the History of how we got here.

M1 Tank Platoon was CM before there was CM!

I can speak only about Germany in this regard. This article is a lot of conjecture. Germany is not wavering in its support for Ukraine. The public isn't and I haven't heard from any serious politician anything in this direction.
About the ceasefire from Scholz - please remember that this whole war thing is pretty new for Germany. Sounds crazy but it is. Public talking about weapon systems would have put anyone in the right wing nut job category in January. Now it is becoming a normal discussion point.
But there is still a significant amount of pacifists who had fought in the 70s & 80s for peace and against weapons. Scholz is also their chancellor and those words are meant for them.
There has been a local election on Sunday and I won't get into the details. But the winners had both a pro-Ukrainian / pro weapons delivery stand.
The public support is there and what has been said about Ukraine being the one to decide how and when it ends is still true.

A little skepticism about military spending is understandable after the last two wars. But it is worth remembering that Ukraine is fundamentally different from Afghanistan and Iraq. Those two wars had absolutely no influence on our security or our larger strategic interests. We lost Afghanistan just about as hard as it is possible to lose a war, and it ultimately meant nothing. Our position is not the slightest bit weaker for our defeat, which I think really drives home just how much wasted effort went into delaying it. Iraq we somehow managed to win, in the sense that the government we installed is still in place without our continued presence being needed to prop it up. But our position in the world is not the slightest bit stronger for that victory. The money, effort, and lives we poured into those wars really were completely wasted (and I really hope my words here are interpreted as more tragic than callous). So yeah, I get it. I understand feeling a bit jaded about any sort of military spending.
But, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine is absolutely central to our security and our interests. The outcome of this war really will make a big difference to our security and position in the world. Every dime we put into aiding the Ukrainians goes directly to improving the security of our European allies and weakening one of our greatest and oldest adversaries. And frankly Ukraine will be cheaper overall than Iraq and Afghanistan (probably). We spent north of 2 trillion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan (~2.5 trillion based on my crude google efforts, assuming the top results were correct). I think we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, but I doubt it will take anything on the order of trillions of dollars to decisively beat Russia in Ukraine (Russia would have to sustain the fight for years for it to breach the trillions for us, and I don't think that's on the table for them). Although, I would still be in favor of helping Ukraine even if it turned out to be more expensive overall than Iraq and Afghanistan.
Granting that it may take a few hundred billion more to rebuild Ukraine after the war, and that might top a trillion overall when added to the wartime aid. But it would be money well spent. Not only is there the ethical side, where that money would go towards improving the lives of 40+ million people. But it would also be a huge benefit for us strategically, as we would almost certainly gain a longtime ally in Ukraine in just the part of the world where another ally could really matter. And because I have heard a million and a half people say that we shouldn't be engaged in nation building let me preempt any complaints that you may have on that front. This would be completely different from Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of nation building. In Iraq and Afghanistan we were trying to build up countries with populations that viewed us as invaders (because, let's be honest, that's exactly what we were). In Ukraine we would be giving the Ukrainian government the money to rebuild their own country after helping them to repel their invaders. So the local resistance to nation building that we encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan simply wouldn't be present in Ukraine.

From wikipedias summary of the Peloponnesian War
"Seizing its opportunity, the Spartan fleet sailed at once to the Dardanelles, the source of Athens's grain. Threatened with starvation, the Athenian fleet had no choice but to follow. Through cunning strategy, Lysander totally defeated the Athenian fleet, in 405 BC, at the Battle of Aegospotami, destroying 168 ships."
People have been fighting over the control of the grain supply from the Black Sea for 2500 years.

Yep an unintended consequence of the war, people getting to see how other countries behave and operate by staying there. My whole world view was changed after a year as an exchange student in America with folk from all over the world. That one year was the most influential on my education than any amount of time spent in a classroom.


 
I hope they have learnt good lessons and that Ukraine benefits.

And in the past few days for the first time since Feb 24 there are more people returning than leaving.
Guess home is home and it's better to build Europe here, now that more people seen it and have an idea what personal ideas they want to bring here from abroad.

Russia is experiencing geo-political bankruptcy, and all its bills are coming due at once. I think there is no way the Russian army last until August. Even in an information system as closed as Russia's it has to be getting around that the only thing you are leaving Ukraine with is a missing limb or two. once that sinks in it is a simple choice between mass desertion, and mass surrender.

For me the friction, incompetence, and brutal behavior of the Russians has been one of the great surprises in this war.    
Apparently the best, most capable, most experienced and to be feared Soviet / Russian unit are those belonging to the 60th Motorized Rifle Division (MRD).  Composed of the 125th Guards Tank Regiment and the 32nd Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment (MRR).  These are the units that compose the OPFOR at the National Training Center (NTC) at Ft. Irwin California. 
Looking back I now suspect the real Soviets / Russians were never close to being as good as the OPFOR. 
       
 
Thanks for your input and service.   Pretty cool to have an NTC Observer/Controller/Trainer on the forum.  
Which has been a real eye opener.  I had thought the Russia army was a modern, professional force that would attempt to follow basic human values and respect (as much as possible) civilians and private property.  I was stupid wrong.  
+1.  Back in the late 1980s I worked in the Division TOC as a member of the 82nd Airborne.  The footprint of the TOC and all the other HQ units was large and noisy with field generators running 24/7.   
An 11B friend of mine told a story of his platoon training in the woods of Ft. Bragg.   They came across the Division HQ, also setup in the woods training.  He was amazed by all the equipment, activity and com wire running into the area.  He jokingly said they thought they stumbled onto a small city out in the woods.  

I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate here, as a user of proprietary DOD hardware and software, there is absolutely something to be said for the simplicity and usability of using COTS systems. A lot of soldiers I’ve talked to would agree. It certainly seems to work for Ukrainians.

The urgency of getting a DOD wide license for CM professional edition is hard to overstate....

UKR Su-25
 

First time that I have heard of this South Korean sailor but I'm glad he's alive.
Also nice to see the CZ 805 BREN making its way into the right hands.

To be fair, that's not really the role of generalist media. Their job is to deliver the first draft of history in broad strokes. Specialist media, like RUSI or Janes, is for the details and analysis. Think of it this way - generalist media is like wikipedia, while specialist media is like a good book. Wikipedia is a great place to start and if you just want a quick overview it's probably all you need. But it you really want to understand WTF happened you're going to have to put in some work yourself.
If you confuse the role of each, you're always going to be disappointed.

Is that really true, or did the Soviet military always have - in retrospect - a kind of Potemkin vibe about it?
Granted, they were very effective from early-'43 through to mid/late-'45, but 'very effective' is not exactly a synonym of 'very good.' Did the Soviets conduct any major operations after WWII? They had a couple of inconsequential and uninspiring skirmishes against the Chinese, and did about as well as anyone in Afghanistan, but other that that ...? Loads of "advisors" in Korea and Vietnam, probably advisors on both sides in Iran/Iraq, plus some AD systems here and there, but really, I can't think of anything they did that was on the scale of what the West (loosely defined) was doing in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
Also, 'advisors'? Telling other people how they should be using their soldiers and equipment is very different to employing your own. And you know what they say about teachers - those who can, do. Those who cant, ...

Funny - my question was exclusively related to the period post-WWII
I'm happy to concede that the Soviets won the ground war against the Germans in the '40s (while the UK won the naval war, and US won the air war .... very broad brush), and was really wondering whether the Western freak out from the '60's right up till the wall crumbled in 89/90 was justified. WarPac force structure was big (like, really big) which does tend to mask a lot of sins. And a defence policy based on "we think they'll probably just trip over their own shoelaces" would never fly. But I do get the impression that there was a bit of anaphylactic shock going on in the political and military spheres.
On the other other hand, as has been noted several times, given slightly different priors we'd currently be sitting around discussing how Putin is still an evil genius after overrunning Ukraine in 3 days, so ... 🤷‍♂️

Old Chinese dude:
VII.2. Having collected an army and concentrated his forces, he must blend and harmonize the different elements thereof before pitching his camp.
VII.3. After that, comes tactical maneuvering, than which there is nothing more difficult. The difficulty of tactical maneuvering consists in turning the devious into the direct, and misfortune into gain.
VII.4. Thus, to take a long and circuitous route, after enticing the enemy out of the way, and though starting after him, to contrive to reach the goal before him, shows knowledge of the artifice of deviation.
VII.5. Maneuvering with an army is advantageous; with an undisciplined multitude, most dangerous....
VII.13. We are not fit to lead an army on the march unless we are familiar with the face of the country--its mountains and forests, its pitfalls and precipices, its marshes and swamps.
VII.14. We shall be unable to turn natural advantage to account unless we make use of local guides....
Zero out of six.

...And that's worth a like for the baseball reference alone.  Western Oregon...at the risk of veering way OT, any chance you're a fellow Seattle Mariners fan? I know that by around the time you hit Corvallis heading down the I-5 it shifts to more San Francisco Giants fans (doesn't bother me...my dad's from the Bay Area and they're my favourite NL team). Up here, it's over 60% Toronto Blue Jays fans because of the "Canada's Team" cachet and their media presence, but Mariners fans are over 20% and the rest is divided among the other teams, especially the big-name and/or West Coast ones...
Getting more on topic, agreed on the last sentiment. I'd much rather run a baseball or hockey team than be a prime minister or president. I sometimes wonder if one of the problems with political power is that it tends to attract the kind of people who want it and put off some of the people most suited to hold it... (I know there are politicians with genuine good intentions, but I think there might be something to that).

And when you LOSE the battles...... I am really starting to expect the Russians to just collapse and shatter any day now, An army just can't take this level of pointless failure for forever, or even all that long.

Well, this Oesterreichs Bundesheer Col. explains fairly well what the Russians have been trying to do in Donbas (basically what the Germans tried at Kursk).

(Video has English subs)
 
The problem for the Russians is that the Ukrainians have had 8 years to prepare the defences in the JFO, as opposed to the 1-2 months the Soviets had at Kursk.