Maquisard manqué

There is some information appeared, Russian advance of last week around Popasna and Rubizhne hapapned because of units of 115th TD defense brigade (Zhytomyr) and 103rd TD brigade (L'viv) just abandoned own positions and later filmed a video, blaming UKR command that "you got us only rifles against artillery, we reject to fight without cover". This caused very angry comments of fighters of reguar units, which blamed theese soldiers in cowardness, because they were equipeed not only with "rifles", but with NLAW and MANPAD and they, regulars, are also suffreing under Russian arty fire, but dug in in hold positions since Feb and don't cry "take us back".
There are also many motivated people in TD units, but many also, especially in western part of Ukraine enlisted there to avoid mobilization and sending to war, because accordig first edition of the law, TD units could be used out of own oblast only for TD tasks. But since situation demands more people on frontline, the law was changed and TD now can be send in combined arms operations. Example of Kharkiv TD brigade showed this was right decision, but if units have motivated servicemen, well supplied and have experienced commanders. Looks like 115th and 103th have a lack of some of theese features. 
Bad situation, which already use Russian PsyOps. I feel a smell of 2014, when wives gathered meetings and demanded "to turn back our husbands home, they are TD and hadn't serve out of own oblast!"

Crossing to hell
Composed panorama from many fragments of UAV filming, but it does not include last 7 tanks sunked by Russians in finale. 

That isn't "carried by the NYT". That's the Asia Times "quoting" the NYT. And I trust the Asia Times "quoting" about as far as I could spit Vladimir Putin.

Politico is also a notorious political gossip rag in the U.S so color me skeptical on anything they write. 
There was a slight worry Poland would get themselves condemned and isolated by the EU for defending and being alongside Orban and turning anti-democratic, but I'm hoping with Russia reminding Europe and Poland where to point the sword towards, Poland cools off and recognizes its place in the EU as part of a strong EE bloc is much better than trying to do whatever the hell its doing with its judiciary. 

Currently, I'm optimistic that the Russians have done such a bang-up job of being the baddies (invading their neighbouring sovereign nation by force of arms, atrocities, threats of armageddon and broadening the conflict, atrocities, being lying liars, atrocities, oppressing their own press and people, atrocities on the ground, war crimes, effective nationalisation of international corporation assets and more atrocities) that "Europe" is belatedly remembering what happened last time an autocrat got spicy with their neighbours in Europe and everyone made excuses in order to carry on "business as usual".
The flight from Russian energy is likely permanent, or at least the reliance upon that energy will be gone for good (so, at best, Russia will be competing in a more open market, as the supply issues from other locales will be "solved problems") and everyone will know just how scary it is to be reliant on the goodwill of a homicidal maniac. And, as Steve said, no one is going to be keen on handing said maniac a replacement gun for the one that the heroes of Ukraine have so ably taken off him.

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.

UKR Su-25
 

Why has someone not yet made an intro/splash screen mod of that ubiquitous song for CMBS???   

This way of thinking, which implies that peoples are a solid and unique group that must be treated and punished for their sins in a unique and total way, reminds me of something very ugly.
From there, it is a very short step. to suggest a "Final Solution" for the Russian people because all of them are guilty of being Russian.
For my part, I deeply detest the Russian government, but I pity the Russian people. 

Ignoring any specific personalities in this post; I just wanted to highlight that this attitude is one of the things I love about working with most Americans. If more of us chose to view the world this way it will be a better place, doing what’s right because you can, not because it is easy. If it also happens to strengthen your allies and interests, even better. Am I optimistic? Yes, but it sure as hell beats being negative for the sake of being negative - nothing gets done with that attitude. 
Just a little positive thought from a Canadian! Back to the war… this is all I will say on this topic. 
(Also, long time thread watcher, second post. Been here since around page 150 or so. Thanks to all for the excellent insights and to the strength of our Ukrainian members here. Glory to Ukraine!) 

Note, I was for the Afghanistan withdrawal for pretty much exactly those reasons. But it's really important to not apply a one-size-fits-all approach to strategic policy. Afghanistan/Iraq/etc were peripheral conflicts of choice. The outcome was never going to affect the global order or our preeminent place within it in any significant way. In fact, those conflicts oriented the US away from peer threats and more important theaters and so could cogently be argued to have actually weakened that order which we lead and from which we reap the benefits. 
Ukraine and the Russian invasion are not in any way peripheral. It's on the border of NATO, on the border of the EU and uncontested Russian taking and control of that space would have profound global effects. Not least of those effects would be the immediate collapse of the rule that European states cannot violently settle disputes or borders. So, I have some sympathy for your argument but it's simply not applicable on this central of a challenge.
P.S. I hope the above is not seen as political per se. It certainly is a very bipartisan position in DC at the moment.
 

Just going to leave this right here for people to muse on.  No political spin in it, just history:
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/marshall-plan-1#:~:text=The Marshall Plan%2C also known,Secretary of State George C.
So that is roughly $218B in todays money:
https://www.officialdata.org/1945-CAD-in-2018?amount=1#:~:text=Value of %241 from 1945,cumulative price increase of 1%2C357.74%.
Likely one of the biggest nation building/reconstruction efforts in modern history which led directly to this:
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/united-states_en
But people gotta figure it out for themselves.
 

Mind you, EU is putting up some hefty money for Ukraine as well.
But breaking it down, only 8 billion actually goes to Ukraine to be "laundered".
Money for weapons and equipment, uh...who's Ukraine gonna buy it from? China? No it's us silly. 9 billion is simply to buy more weapons to replenish our depleted stocks. $5 billion to ensure the supply shortages worldwide due to Ukrainian grain being stolen by Russia don't **** up more countries into instability. (Mind you american grain does exist, so who's gonna benefit from higher grain prices?)
Quoted from: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rand-paul-blocks-quick-passage-40-billion-ukraine-aid-package-rcna28648
 

its not being sent, most of it just gets used to purchase American weapons and equipment to be used by Ukraine. job creation. 

Since Ukraine doesn't exist in a bubble and neither do we, we are involved whether we like it or not. That means we need to put our political power and money where it counts to produce a resolution that works to maintain a global order that's quite significantly canted in our favor. Ukraine did work mightily to prepare for this scenario but they were limited by innate capability, the then state of interstate politics in the EU, the ability/willingness of American administrations to help. For our part, the strategic goal should be to a; recognize that Russian aggression on this scale is highly destabilizing to the international order, b; pursue what means are feasible to put a stop to that aggression now and c; ensure that such aggression in the foreseeable future is not going to reoccur.
We created the global order and benefit enormously in a myriad of ways large and small. $40 billion is a small price to pay to maintain it.

Having heard on the BBC (who just this morning got around to the famous bridging fiasco as breaking news) about how Russia is threatening to encircle Sievierodonetsk, I decided to summarise how the Russian 'threatening to encircle' reports have changed over the war so far:

There has never been a better time to deliver a major strategic defeat to the Russians - whatever it takes to keep Ukraine intact (and victorious) and Europe united will paid dividends in the long run. 
 
This isn’t even taking in the moral and legal context of why maximum support for Ukraine now should create a more stable, more rules based Europe over the long term. 

Ah yes that old chestnut which the Americans in particular were, quite rightly, thoroughly bored to death of.  For some reason the British Army decided it was the master of counter-insurgency in the early 2000s because of the master tactic of wearing berets/soft hats in Northern Ireland.  Funny old thing was that in my two tours there (1989-1990 and 1992-1995), every time I left a patrol base I was required to wear a helmet.
There is a lot more to it clearly, the security force footprint in Northern Ireland was massive compared to the deployments in Basra and Helmand.  Off the top of my head there were at least eight regular battalions, about six or seven Ulster Defence Regiment Battalions, and god knows how many RUC of various hues at any one time.  Then of course the opposition was smaller than anything faced in either Basra or Helmand, was less liberally armed and not prone to employing suicide bombers.
Add to that the environment in Northern Ireland was familiar and well-known with handy things like accurate census records, vehicle licensing offices, property/land ownership records, telephone books and no massive linguistic, religious or cultural differences on the scale of those seen in Basra and Helmand.
Then there is the border - while there was certainly quite rightly a lot of sympathy in the Republic of Ireland for the nationalist cause, the Gards (Gardai - RoI Police Force) and Irish Defence Force were helpful in their dealings with us and the Republic of Ireland was a benign neighbour compared to Pakistan or Iran in the Afghan and Basra contexts.  The border was; therefore, relatively secure, particularly when compared to Afghanistan and Iraq.
I remember running pre-deployment training for both theatres and the number of people who looked at me blankly when I talked about 'Charlie 1s' (a form that was filled out by patrols in NI every time a vehicle stop was made with details such as make colour model VRN driver details, location of the stop etc).
Masters of COIN indeed - although coming second in Basra and Helmand was personally disappointing for me, I hope that the particular COIN competence trope has been thoroughly killed off in grown up circles in the British military and that lessons have been learned.

Expansion of NATO in Europe also means that Europe will become less dependent on the US. The US already had a dissident president, and his supporters still support putin. I prefer the US to remain fully democratic, but I don't take them for granted. To call Kim of North Korea and putin great guys give me the shivers. Two nut regimes with enough bombs to wage a terror campaign on the world is unacceptable. One nut regime (Russia) is bad enough. The Democratic Party won't be here forever. The social democratic systems in Europe are called left liberals in the US. The Republican Party needs to regain trust. 

Exactly - the point I wanted to highlight, given my particular trade, is the use of IPB.  It is an effective tool, particularly when you can draw on the expertise of SMEs - in this case a combat engineer who knows the detail on the river and bank conditions.  From there, as an analyst, once you narrow down the likely crossing sites you can start refining your NAIs and TAIs.  He also discusses the likely enemy assets needed to cross that gap and that allows you to work out the echelon you're facing and where that equipment might come from and how it will get to where it needs to be.  This allows you to add more NAIs to locate them and TAIs to strike them.  By knowing the equipment that is likely to be used you can then give clearer direction to your ISR assets - in this instance look for boats.  If deemed a High Payoff Target (HPT) then you are looking to strike that/those asset(s).  There was also some good detail about timings as well as time estimates.
A lot of people outside the intelligence trade seem to think that good tactical intelligence is enabled by super secret technical whizzbangery.  In fact it isn't - it is essentially a speed-time-distance problem that you are solving based on a knowledge of the enemy's orbat/likely orbat and the area of operations.  This is almost a classic case study of how to do this and how, if done competently (as in this case), tactical intelligence provides the decision support to get inside the enemy's OODA loop and to defeat him.

dang Steve is gonna get a timeout 🙃

this picture is not "full context for foreigners".   That is a an extreme outlier of a picture.  It's like "jews for Hitler".  That is so misleading as to be a complete lie.  The 1 out of 10,000 exception is shown and we are meant to conclude the utterly, ridiculous "see, even the black folks loooooove the confederacy!"
ASL Veteran, you should ashamed of trying to pass this off as informative.

thank you, g.f., - you hit it right on the head.  lets see if the 'preserving history at all cost' crew would be happy with replacing confederate statues and monuments with plaques stating the plain truth- 'in this place there was a statue honoring men who betrayed their country  for the right  to own people as property..   This was the grand cause of the confederacy'   somehow i dont think they'd except that either. some sides in some wars deserve no  commemeration or honor- their 'cause'  cost them that right, sorry.
 
cheerts,
rob
 

Why would you fight so hard to keep monuments for people who fought for the right to keep other people as slaves?

I wonder if you'd use the same expression if we got news that UA troops are conducting mass executions in Russian villages.
War crimes dont make war crimes in retaliation legal. Simple as.
Also Soviet Army was capable of mass executions long before German boots stepped on their territory. Their glorification is just as offending to some as the swastika or the Japanease sun is.