G.I. Joe

What do you mean “Even worse …about it?” The day that someone, anyone, “can do something about it” is the day this country ceases to exist as a Republic guided by our Constitution! It is extremely pitiful when someone complains that an opposite point of view, no matter how distasteful it is to another should be forbidden. The oath I swore for over 60 years both in the military and in Federal Government service “To protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC….” Is deeply ingrained in me. The First Amendment protections of free speech and freedom of association doesn’t apply to just you alone, and I will fight to the death to preserve YOUR right to speech and association even when I think you’re a left-wing nut case! Will you guarantee the same to me and others? It sure doesn’t look it from your statement.
 
 

If valid - this my friends it what drone superiority looks like.

Remains of "Aeropract" A-22 small aircraft, turned into drone was recovered on the impact place in Yelabuga
Maybe it would be better to dismount chassis and launch the plane with catapult - instead of chassis weight to put more HE
 

This is the key point to take away from the rather tedious past couple days on this thread.
The challenging part is that propagandists can come up with reams and reams of verbose, officious-sounding nonsense much faster than anyone can challenge it. This was already the case before large language models made it trivial to create pages of vaguely reasonable-sounding claptrap at the push of a button. Now it is worse. And when those propagandists are also working for authoritarian states that exercise near-totalitarian controls over the media landscape within their borders, they are also able to capture plenty of real-life stories that support the views they want to shape, while suppressing the spread of content that does not.
Out here in the actually-free world, the propaganda coming from these authoritarian government mouthpieces seems laughably ineffective. How could anyone believe something that is such unabashed, unadulterated, full-blown propaganda? They're not even pretending it's otherwise! And yet, people believe it. "Free thinkers" with chips on their shoulders about their own government get bamboozled into believing that they are the ones living in an authoritarian state, actually. And then the "news" coming out of other authoritarian states can surely be no more fake than their own news, and, by the way, what is news other than propaganda, at the core? There are no facts, only interpretations, you see. This is why I don't mind you doubting. What is truth, anyway? Does anybody love anybody anyway?
It is depressing how many people fall into this hole.
This is not only why it is important to counter the Kremlin's lies, but also to consistently push back against the same kind of democracy-eroding rhetoric coming from media and political figures in parts of the world where there still is freedom of expression and freedom of association and so on. The people pushing it tend to either be useful idiots, or privileged enough (through age, wealth or power) to be insulated from the consequences. In both cases, not the best folks to be looking toward to inform your view of the world.

Free e-book: War in Ukraine: Conflict, Strategy, and the Return of a Fractured World (Project MUSE - War in Ukraine (jhu.edu))
Found this e-book which is a collection of essays on the invasion (it's from John Hopkins University, released under a Creative Commons licence). The contents and authors are:
The Ukraine War and Global Order => Hal Brands

1 Ukraine, Russia, China, and the World => Stephen Kotkin
2 Why Putin Invaded Ukraine => Michael McFaul and Robert Person
3 Strategic Fanaticism: Vladimir Putin and Ukraine => Lawrence Freedman
4 The Failure to Deter: US Policy toward Ukraine and Russia from the End of the Cold War until February 24, 2022 =>
Michael Kimmage
5 How the War Will End => Anne Applebaum
Part ii: The Conflict
6 The Russia-Ukraine War: Military Operations and Battlefield Dynamics => Michael Kofman
7 Russian Military Resilience and Adaptation: Implications for the War in Ukraine and Beyond => Dara Massicot
8 Planning for the Worst: The Russia-Ukraine “Tiger Team” => Alexander Bick
9 US Strategy in Ukraine => Kori Schake
10 Nuclear Lessons and Dilemmas from the War in Ukraine => Francis J. Gavin
11 Fallacies of Strategic Thinking in the Ukraine War  => Thomas G. Mahnken and Joshua Baker
Part iii: Global Dimensions and Implications
12 The Ukraine War and Global Cleavages => Ashley J. Tellis
13 Putin’s Point of No Return  => Andrea Kendall-Taylor
14 Accelerating Profound Changes Unseen in a Century: Chinese Assessments of and Responses to Russia’s Invasion 
of Ukraine  => Bonny Lin and Brian Hart
15 The European Union as a War Project: Five Pathways toward a Geopolitical Europe => Mark Leonard
16 Lose-Lose: The Economic Sanctions of the Russo-Ukrainian War => Daniel W. Drezner
17 America’s Global Role in the Shadow of the Ukraine Conflict => Peter D. Feaver and William Inbode
It's 300-odd pages long in total, but each chapter is it's own essay which should make it a little less daunting. Some distinguished names have contributed; Laurance Freedman, Anne Applebaum, Dara Massicot, Kofman.
I've only read the first few chapters but so far, so good.
 
 

On victory and defeat - because it is the basis of so much “proof” on the opposing sides of this thing.  In warfare victory and defeat are very slippery concepts.  One can win a war by all metrics and wind up losing in the long run (see European Allies after WW1 and 2).  The vice versa is also possible (see Japan).  So whenever someone jumps in with the “Ukraine is obviously losing, Russia is winning” or vice versa, without clearly defining what that means, I get suspicious.
For now the best way to try and determine what victory/defeat means in this war, one needs to come to a common understanding of what the initial political and strategic goals of this war for each side were and were not.
When I am looking at the “winning/losing” equation I am using the following objectives.
For Ukraine:
- the survival of the state as independent and sovereign.
- the creation of a narrative of effective resolve and resistance that draws in international support.
- shape and set the conditions for enduring security integrity at wars end (this one is key to effective reconstruction and recovery).
For Russia:
- the complete political absorption control of Ukraine as a vassal state or sub-state.
- a clear demonstration of Russian power within its Near Abroad designed to push back on Western encroachment and reinforce the notion that other states within this region need to “stay in line”.  This one plays to both external and internal audiences.
- any and all erosion of NATO unity and resolve, as well as a draw back of US influence in the region.
For the West (we often forget we have a win/lose calculus here as well):
- A clear demonstration of the western rules based international order.  Russia must be forced to get back in line and face punitive measures for an illegal invasion that violates the rules we constructed.  To this end we support Ukraines objectives; however, we do not need all of them in full to achieve ours. We do need a clear demonstration of western unity and resolve as a foundational underpinning for that western rules based order.
- Any opportunities to expand western influence and control - see Sweden and Finland.
- the reduction of Russia as a security threat to Europe and globally.
- Avoid a catastrophic collapse of Russia at all costs as it would make the overall regional situation, and possibly global one much worse.
You will note that for me none of these are tied directly to lines on the ground.  I do not believe that where this war ends drive those strategic objectives (within reason of course - if Russia takes Kyiv the viability of Ukrainian state is greatly diminished).  
By my metrics, Russia has already pretty much “lost” this thing.  They can hold onto to what they have now but none of their strategic objectives are accomplished.  They end the war in worse position than when they started it.  Their only Hail Mary is that western support and attention dries up over time and they can exploit that to try and pull this one out of the dumpster.  The odds of full Russian control over Ukraine by this point are pretty damn low.  Much worse than at wars beginning.
Ukraine has two out of three, that last one of setting conditions for enduring security has not been accomplished. Ukraines long game is to enter into western economic and security mechanisms.  They definitely have earned that but we have the thorny issue of Russia still able to make trouble and project that into Ukraine.  We can live with a level of this a la South Korea, but I suspect we will need this thing to hold more water to work.
The West is doing well but we are not there yet, and things could still go bad quickly.  We definitely have shored up influence, control and unity. And we have managed to reduce Russian threats pretty significantly as the Russian military has been shattered. What we do not have are the conditions for long term stabilization. Russia is neither a zero-threat nor stable in the long term.
So to summarize…on victory/defeat so far:
Russia - nope.
Ukraine - OK, but not there yet.
West - meh, so long as we don’t blow the whole thing up.
I hope this is useful for the next time someone rolls through here with “well obviously Russia is winning” due to some headline about a tactical twitch somewhere.  They likely are not using the same metrics I do and in many cases have ulterior motives for painting this war in a certain light.

Ukrainian manufactured Aeroprakt a22 ultra light aircraft being used as a kamikaze drone on Shahed factory. Range to target ~ 1200km.
Supposedly this one didnt hit the factory but a building (dormitory) infront of it, but there was another explosion, maybe that one hit the production facility 
 
Maybe instead of scrapping A-10s, they should be converted to well armored drones?😄 This plane survived 8 hours in russian airspace

And also “absolutely”.  We should track loses, terrain etc as exactly that, indicators.  In sums they can signal trends, which are extremely important for telling wind directions.
Where things get weird is when people take these trends as actually metrics of victory and/or defeat.  Adiivka was a long brutal tactical offensive that really has not yielded an operational consequence, at least not yet.  It is a data point within the war.  Not a fundamental sign any one side is “winning or losing”.  Ironically, those using Russian advances over the winter as an indicator that “The Hot Thread Has No Clothes” are using “heuristics”.  Which we have been all schooled upon as our own original “sin.”
The reality is that we need to see operational level decisions that change strategic options before we can say the tide is shifting.  If Russia could have translated Adiivka into an operational manoeuvre and was at the gates of Kharkiv right now, with a view to splitting Ukraine in half…well then we are definitely into “uh, ok something has really shifted here” territory.  Ukraines strategic options would be collapsing in this scenario, which to my eyes is a real metric.
Taking Adiivka or Bakhmut as signs of Russian winning, resolve or invincibility, only demonstrates a serious lack of understanding how war actually works.  And strangely, where were these people when Ukraine was making similar small limited tactical gains last summer?  Oh wait, they were here crowing about how “Ukraine is done!”
There is a clear double standard in some western political circles.  And this part really makes me angry.  Real people are suffering and dying in the largest conventional war we have seen in a long time.  And the first thing some people are doing is viewing it through the “I will do the opposite of what the other political party is doing because they cannot win.”  Not what is morally right or wrong.  What is best for their personal political calculus.  That is what really makes me react to these trolls.  They do not have the best interests of anyone at heart, but their own.  It is an extremely selfish way to approach something as brutal and unjust as this war.

And then there is the minor quibble of being a deliberate warcrime.  At some point Ukraine is going to want justice (and/or compensation) for warcrimes Russia has committed.  Bad idea to throw away the high ground by blowing airliners out of the sky.
In this day and age Ukraine does not need some sort of antiquated (and expensive) massive “no-fly zone” that risks that kind of blowback.  The US already knows where the Russian military airfields are, and while military aircraft can technically land and refuel at a civilian airport, they cannot rearm and repair - if they did that then the airport is no longer civilian.
So a long range air denial capability need only establish no-fly over military airfields.  This is also, conveniently, when all military aircraft are forced to fly at “sub-Mach”.  We are basically talking about a platform that does what I suspect UK SOF have been doing for some time - go deep, lo profile and wait.  If the standoff is a couple hundred kms one could essentially deny military airfield operations.  Or better yet, arm them with FASCAM and mine the airfield on a regular basis.
That with some cyber and deep IA ops could really hurt the RUAF. This by the way would be a strategic campaign.  Ukraine really seems to be leaning into these to effect.  It is the one area they are getting better at while Russia is not.  Russia is basically doing what it has in the past, lobbing missiles at anything as more of a terror campaign than deliberate effects.  Kharkiv power plant has been pointed at as an example of Russia improving their game.  Maybe, but it took them over two f#cking years to hit a major power station that should have been obliterated on the first day.
 

Hmmm I wonder if the limited drones they have had up to this point had other more important targets on the actual front line....
Russia has had trouble even hitting stationary targets.
Ukraine has only just had the manufacturing capacity and capabilities to hit Russian oil facilities these things take time to develop, test and then manufacture in quantity. 
It will no doubt happen at some stage but to say it should have been done already is a bit naive...
I have had clients like you and I just smile...
If it was easy it would have been done already...
Humans you gotta love them...

The Ukrainian drone hordes will be the most effective thing for finally restricting the rail network, but I suspect they still have to deal with range limitations.  Taking out track is very temporary - it's not hard lay new segments of track quickly.  But taking out locomotives and leaving a pile of rolling stock on the track adds some complication.  Locomotives are also something you could attack very effectively with a not-very-clever autonomous drone if you need to hit them beyond effective RF control range.

Via ADS-B?
It's not perfect. In an area where there aren't a lot of ground receivers feeding your map you're dependent on them being picked up by Iridium.  And depending on what system you're using to watch aircraft, the lag between transmission and display can be anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes.
And the easy defense for russia is to squawk civilian airliner codes so that whoever wants to shoot at them would need visual confirmation to have confidence that it's not.

Well, the 'Limited Contingent of Soviet Forces in Afghanistan' was ultimately forced out when their air supplied FOBs became untenable.
The biggest kick in the ntz will come though when Ivan's rail network goes down. Shoulda been done long ago, IMHO, by any means necessary, but as the pros remind us, easier said than done.

Now THAT is a rumor! And hopefully a true one.

One ray of light, and this is *strictly* barroom RUMINT, FWIW: I won't talk specifics here (and I don't know that much anyway), but it seems all air transport throughout European Russia at below mach speed will shortly become extremely unsafe. And even supersonic jets need to take off and land....
As rumoured, the necessary system is already in Uke hands, but they're trying hard to find a way not to have it splash RU civilian airliners by mistake. That wouldn't be a great look, given MH17. And you can absolutely expect the Russians to dangle airliners full of foreigners, especially Turks or Middle Easterners, in harms way.
...At a guess, when foreign carriers (looking at you, Turkish Airlines and Emirates) begin canceling routes to Russia with scant explanation, that will be proof that this is not just BS.

Two years in everybody is tired, and showing it one way or another.
 

Except this isn’t a grubby arms deal. The plan would have had to have set up a complex terrorist operation in Moscow which would have had to fool American intelligence in Syria and elsewhere. It’s just not credible and *there* *is* *no* *evidence* *that* *happened*. 

Let's look at this as simply as possible: what about the Russian government for the last 20 years suggests to you that they are capable of a finely tuned false flag that somehow managed to fool the US government's vast resources pointed at ISIS-K?

IS does not like to cooperate with Hamas (nor with other groups on that matter,although they did some limited contacts and definitelly copied themselves), regard them impure sunni, basically Tehran puppets -which isn't exactly untrue. Theory of Hamas being Iranian asset is gaining ground in wide islamic world, so IS has nothing to do with Gaza; especially Khorasan branch. In their views, such thing as Gaza or Palestinian nation does not exist.
Also these kind of radical groups are by default builded in contre to all normal geopolitics. Russia, USA, Israel, they don't care. It's their main virtue in the eyes of islamist edgy teenagers around the world. All other groups sonner or later become somebody's proxies.
It's worth to note, since topic was not touched here, that supposed attackers were intercepted on the road in Bryansk...leading to Belarus actually, not Ukraine. I can fully imagine them trying to shelter there for some time (or already having fixed contacts) and then possibly trying to cross into Europe disguised as poor refugees.

People have largely forgotten the original ISIS - the guys waging their war of conquest in Syria in 2014 - were largely Russians who had been radicalized by the Chechen war. So Russia experiencing a random ISIS terrorist attack is not out of the question. 

I don't have a source handy to cite at the moment, but I recall reports some years back of U.S. SOF acting as forward air controllers for Iranian fighter-bombers conducting strikes against ISIL...

During the Cold War almost every terror organization was influenced, supported or at least talking to one side of the other.  So as we get deeper into whatever this thing is I suspect we will begin to see the relationship between terrorism and the state evolve beyond “we do not negotiate”.  We will very likely see all sorts of backroom deals and “freedom fighters” in proxy nation struggles.
That said, ISIL is very likely going to wind up alienated by all great powers as simply too unstable - this is not the first time this has come up.  The US spent a decade actively hunting ISIL down all over the MENA and any drug deals with them are pure political poison.  Not to mention they are full fledged loons who really can’t be rationally negotiated with.  So in this case I suspect it is simply a “duck”.  What is odd is why ISIL is picking a fight with Russia now?  Russia did side with the Assad regime and is no friend to ISIL or Islamist extremism; however, why wage a high profile attack now?  Are they thinking Russia is overextended?  Oddly, ISIL could become a point of cooperation between Russian and the US, much like some terror groups did during the Cold War.
This one is really kinda strange.

First, US support has not completely broken down. $3 billion is being disbursed now and another $300 million is shortly to follow. In addition, while there is a deadlock now doesn't mean it will continue as long as Biden is in the WH and the Senate remains non-crazy. At this very moment, a motion to vacate has been tendered on Johnson and it's quite likely that the price of Dem support to keep him in place is going to be a clean vote on Ukraine aid. To say the "US does nothing" isn't just extremely not factual...it actually hurts your argument in DC because the MAGA folks can point to that sort of talk and say "See? Whatever we do is never going to be enough". I feel and sympathize with your frustration but the old saw about babies and bathwater applies.  
And to the original point, a big spike in energy prices *would* make the job of Ukraine aid deniers *easier*. It would be strategic malpractice to pretend otherwise. 

I would strongly suggest anyone who thinks this level of push/pull between the US and Ukrainian liaisons is excessively disfunctional should go back look at what it was like in the Allied high commands in WWI and WWII. Alliances are hard. Hard questions have to be asked and long term possibilities must be hashed out. Making the sausage always looks ugly and in war triply so. It's a sign of Ukrainian strength, not weakness, that the US clearly *isn't* calling the shots and a sign of US trust in the Ukrainian government that it isn't trying harder to do so.

There were other issues too
https://www.oglaf.com/ornithology/