Billy Ringo

It's going to be difficult for a politician to overcome this type of sentiment and turn their back on Ukraine.  Brad Paisley is a country icon---his words and songs carry weight amongst voters--especially conservative Republican voters in the South.  Listen towards the end, Zelensky speaks directly in the song.  I'm still on my hill.
 

Ah yes, that good old Western self-hate. What would we do without it?

Slava Ukraini! We will NEVER abandon you guys.

1 year of the war is passed. From the start of the invasion and to the huge count of air and missile strikes. One of my friends has been killed by wagner artillery in Bohorodichne village near Bakhumt. My father-in-law has been killed by storming the defensive enemy positions in the Kherson region 1st of October. I gave 3 of my salaries (all what I have)on the first day of the war on the military budget. Thanks to all of you, thanks for your help. Taking carry of our refugees, helping our soldiers to destroy enemy forces with AT weapons, artillery, APS, AFV, and Tanks, peoples who served in foreign legions. Thank you for giving billions of money to support our economy. Special thanks to battlefront for small support for me, when I asked about a discount, they gave me 2 games with all DLCs for free - I didn't expect this. Some of my relatives were in Kherson in occupation, and all high-value electronic and expensive things were looted from them by Russian forces. And now we don't fear rocket strikes (10 times they exploded 700-1000m from my house) we don't fear nuclear threat, we don't fear the second army in the world and you shouldnt. Sorry for we English would that what I want to say for all of you, I can tell you many things about the war but first i will try to improve my language knowlages.

Why you are flat wrong:
We have spent $30 billion on this war so far, much of which is actually recycled back into the American economy. That's equivalent to something like 4% of our defense budget to cripple the biggest threat to the global political order in half a century or more. This war is less than a year old  and Russia has already lost about half of the territory it gained.   It isn't our "foreign adventure" it is Russia's...which has repeatedly said Moldova and the Baltics are next. Which means NATO...and we certainly intend on defending it hell or high water and obviously should.

I think you are missing a whole lot of nuance of what actually happened on these missions.  The military was not simply being “police” as there was an open insurgency/guerrilla war going on, which is well outside the scope of police forces. Police forces were not anywhere near prepared to deal with what was going on in these places, and military power alone could not do it either.  These insurgencies were to the point that governments in country could not function and in the end defeated both us and those governments.  We cannot and should not approach this with a “whelp the first three days went really well, watcha gonna do?”
Military power is “designed” to do whatever the political level asks it to do - we do not get to say “sorry we are not designed for this”, we redesign ourselves to the problem and win.  This is an extension of what military power within the context of our nation states, is really there for - to implement policy, and guarantor implement of policy by others.
Moving the goal posts is an incredibly bad idea.  I mean why learn from our mistakes and build better, when “we really won after all?”

I should clarify that I don't see the Western strategic approaches being inherently better than Ukraine's current process at those levels.  
I emphasize and highlight the NATO level training up of Ukraines office corp as a strategic advantage because their institutional mass improvement and deeper professional development is the direct opposite of Russias current process.  
If we're talking how smart mass precision beats dumb mass hand-over-fist I'd argue that it's not just in the realm of technology and hardware but also in mindset. As we can see,  an institution where exploiting smart mass precision is in the cultural bedrock will adapt to and explore  future technologies far quicker and more easily than one that does not have that culture. That is exactly what is happening right now on the battlefield,  but the unique amplifier for the ZSU is the external factor of NATO and its massive technological and intellectual depth. 
By contrast, the Russian MoD has no one else to turn to for intellectual development,  and probably has no interest in that very idea. The chauvinistic mentality is a roadblock to deeper exploration of new concepts and strange technologies. 
So while AFRF is crawling towards a modern FORCE concept,  the ZSU is getting into NATOs battlewagon and uber-ing off. 
  NATO is not some font of wisdom or amazing perfection -  but it comes from two continents wort of advanced technology and deep military exploration and professionalism. 
Russia has nothing like that to draw on for it to adapt to this future war. 
The AFRF is going to keep making the same fundamental mistakes because it has no one else to offer alternative ideas, it has no interest in outside teachings above tech transfer and it politically incapable of accepting the idea e that it is wrong. 

I should know better than to challenge an expert, but--that's never stopped me before so here goes:
From a public perception standpoint it's obviously advantageous to claim the UA is calling the shots, developing the strategies, the timing and driving their own campaign bus.  But....(and this is where I usually get in trouble),  are they really independently developing their own strategies without significant input from a select few career and trusted professionals from the US and/or NATO?    Those that know the real capabilities of their own weapons?  Those that have visibility to the battlefield?  Those that have access to more human intel?  Those that have access to more advanced battlefield analysis scenarios to test different strategies and possible outcomes?
I understand that the Ukrainians make the final call as to what happens and when, but, who is actually developing and analytically testing different scenarios and possible strategies to use on the battlefield and then recommending those to the Ukrainians?  Thus---maybe it's just not the Ukrainians managing corrosive warfare--but also others who are crafting different scenarios.
I'll run back to my trench and wait for incoming...

I should know better than to challenge an expert, but--that's never stopped me before so here goes:
From a public perception standpoint it's obviously advantageous to claim the UA is calling the shots, developing the strategies, the timing and driving their own campaign bus.  But....(and this is where I usually get in trouble),  are they really independently developing their own strategies without significant input from a select few career and trusted professionals from the US and/or NATO?    Those that know the real capabilities of their own weapons?  Those that have visibility to the battlefield?  Those that have access to more human intel?  Those that have access to more advanced battlefield analysis scenarios to test different strategies and possible outcomes?
I understand that the Ukrainians make the final call as to what happens and when, but, who is actually developing and analytically testing different scenarios and possible strategies to use on the battlefield and then recommending those to the Ukrainians?  Thus---maybe it's just not the Ukrainians managing corrosive warfare--but also others who are crafting different scenarios.
I'll run back to my trench and wait for incoming...

Or maybe it is the UA recommending possible strategies to NATO since they know the ground so intimately. NATO processes scenarios in light of intel and grand strategic political factors. Then I guess some agreement is made. In some ways this is not a proxy war since the proxy has so much influence on how the war is conducted. It's more of a partnership in the defeat of Russia. In biology; a symbiotic relationship. 

No need, I have no doubt there are significant supporting relationships happening here.  We already know the west (US specifically) is directly involved in ISR and targeting.  We are definitely lending our expertise in terms of western equipment and force generation.  
But the west is not managing the application of this war.  The risks are way too high for both us and the Ukrainians to go down that road.  I think we are tightly linked and may even have a veto authority on some weapons systems/targeting; however I also strongly suspect that the Ukrainian military has complete unity of command up through to the political level.  If there are any management pressures being applied, the political level is the place to do it - trying to micro-manage a proxy war just doesn't work and is in fact a pretty key metric of being in a "bad proxy war" position (see. Vietnam).
And then the Ukrainians own the "ping space".  The returns from the environment are coming from them as they are the ones in contact.  We may be able to see a lot but they are feeling it. This means that they are in a better position to really build the instinctive understanding of the environment, not us - to really learn about a war you need to be all in it.  I have no doubt we are in deep on supporting roles in this, but they do not subsume supported roles - tails wagging dogs is another terrible way to wage a war.
Based on what we have seen there is just too much positive evidence that this is that way things are being run.  As such the UA is really out in front (and should be) on all this.  We are likely already lining up their leadership for book deals and doctrine positions - we need to learn very quickly from this war, faster than our opponents.  

I should know better than to challenge an expert, but--that's never stopped me before so here goes:
From a public perception standpoint it's obviously advantageous to claim the UA is calling the shots, developing the strategies, the timing and driving their own campaign bus.  But....(and this is where I usually get in trouble),  are they really independently developing their own strategies without significant input from a select few career and trusted professionals from the US and/or NATO?    Those that know the real capabilities of their own weapons?  Those that have visibility to the battlefield?  Those that have access to more human intel?  Those that have access to more advanced battlefield analysis scenarios to test different strategies and possible outcomes?
I understand that the Ukrainians make the final call as to what happens and when, but, who is actually developing and analytically testing different scenarios and possible strategies to use on the battlefield and then recommending those to the Ukrainians?  Thus---maybe it's just not the Ukrainians managing corrosive warfare--but also others who are crafting different scenarios.
I'll run back to my trench and wait for incoming...

For the non-Mil here (such as myself), these observations from a relative in the British Army:
The fella fighting was going through a mag every couple of seconds. They all need to be reloaded. The grens are shipped in two parts,  fuse and body and they have to be married almost immediately beforehand. The RPG warhead has to be fused, and married to the motor. The frightened bloke did well to keep at it. He came out to fire at one point, but fighting bloke told [him] to get back in.
There is enough work in that intensity to take half a section* out just maintaining the fire. In a platoon the Reserve is constantly rebombing the mags and sending them forward. That pit was held because of the sheer amount of suppressing fire that bloke laid down, and it was only possible with the support from the frightened guy.
[The Shooter] has been in that position for weeks, but I’m surprised he didn’t have a firing ledge cut into to get better visibility.
You’d wonder at the BMP crew. They just ate a RPG, and second one, and didn’t return fire into the position. Might have been too close to depress their cannon.
Yeah, milchat is laughing at ‘most engagements are at up to 300m’ yeah chew on 30m.... 
So the comments I've seen (not here) mocking the second guy are just sheer, stupid amateur ignorance. In a fight everyone plays a part and not everyone is a hero every time. Artillery explosion overpressure waves and constant combat (and the threat of combat) do awful things to the human brain.  The bravest man can be steadily reduced to a nervous cat with enough concussive impacts.
The "scared"  guy could just as easily be the hero next time.  Or not,  but who knows - unless you're in the fox hole and you're him or his shooter buddy. No one else knows. Any commentary beyond that is just talking uninformed ****e. 
 
*In the BA a Platoon is made of Sections. In the US they're called squads or teams (I believe? ). 

Oh and just to put the bow on this whole thing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64644845
We had a lotta laughs though - cue montage.

Thanks for the kind words about beggars. it's so nice to feel like a beggar in a destroyed country under rocket attacks, and you reminded me of this in such a timely manner.
I can say on behalf of the Ukrainians here we dream that you stop this whole farce called support for Ukraine. At least then we would clearly understand what we can count on in the fight against Russia. All your support is nothing more than a mockery.
And one last thing for you personally buddy - ИДИ НА ХУЙ

Is my link not working?  Seems it took me to the debate on forms of economic and governmental rule instead of How Hot is Ukraine Going to Get????  Is it possible that this divergence in discussion is intentional?  (Yes, I'm paranoid---but in my job I'm paid to be paranoid.)
Anyways, found the following quote interesting as to why Ukraine continues to battle for Bakhmut:
“We must understand the significance of these battles,” Mr. Zelensky said. “That is where the unprecedented destruction of Russian potential is taking place now.” 
 

If this is solely about Russian elites, my perception is that this is a very valid statement. If it's about right leaning elites in North America and many parts of Europe, I think it's painting with a VERY broad brush as my personal experience indicates otherwise.  And much of that work is done quietly without the need to seek attention.  But---I'd rather not take this discussion further into unrelated topics so I will not reply further.
Maybe it's just me, but second guessing or questioning Poland's contribution to Ukraine over the past 12 months would put one on the deep side of a losing argument. But that's just me.
All the talk about the delay in getting weapons and training to Ukraine, shortages of ammunition and questioning whether Ukraine can hold the Russians off until the cavalry arrives late Spring or early Summer, makes me wonder whether the arms and ammunition are already in-country and ready to flatten a Russian advance.  It makes no sense to hear so much discussion about what Ukraine doesn't have, their weaknesses.  
Would Russia be able to accurately detect a large buildup of Ukrainian forces?  Tanks, new airplanes, additional long-range missiles, etc.   Is it possible that Ukraine is simply waiting for Russia to expose themselves by going on the offensive, then unleash holy Hell only on the Russians?  Is it possible to "hide" or conceal a significant amount of new military hardware?

Is my link not working?  Seems it took me to the debate on forms of economic and governmental rule instead of How Hot is Ukraine Going to Get????  Is it possible that this divergence in discussion is intentional?  (Yes, I'm paranoid---but in my job I'm paid to be paranoid.)
Anyways, found the following quote interesting as to why Ukraine continues to battle for Bakhmut:
“We must understand the significance of these battles,” Mr. Zelensky said. “That is where the unprecedented destruction of Russian potential is taking place now.” 
 

Speaking of paranoia, I'm pretty curious as to why we are all being completely accepting of the idea that the US is pushing Ukraine hard to pull out of Bakhmut but Ukraine is refusing because reasons. Is that possible? Sure. Is it likely that simple? No. And could it be a piece of a fairly sophisticated information strategy aimed at Russian observers? I'd say almost certainly. 

Is my link not working?  Seems it took me to the debate on forms of economic and governmental rule instead of How Hot is Ukraine Going to Get????  Is it possible that this divergence in discussion is intentional?  (Yes, I'm paranoid---but in my job I'm paid to be paranoid.)
Anyways, found the following quote interesting as to why Ukraine continues to battle for Bakhmut:
“We must understand the significance of these battles,” Mr. Zelensky said. “That is where the unprecedented destruction of Russian potential is taking place now.” 
 

Great discussion, y'all.  I ran out of likes whilst so many were deserving of one.
US spends ~$700B a year on military.  And as some astute person recently stated, we've spent $50B on UKR.  Comparing that to the over $2T costs of Iraq & Afghanistan, how is the cost of UKR even an issue??

Without capitalism we would not have personal computers, iPhones, the internet, or many many things that are useful for society.  I met and worked with a lot of the people involved in creating these worlds and none of them did it for the money, even though several have become rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
The thing about capitalism is that bad ideas die and good ideas continue to get funding.  In the non-capitalist system bad ideas just keep on going.  Polemic arguments should focus on mitigation of the undesired outcomes via regulation for example, rather than broadcast sweeping and false judgement about the system as a whole.
Now perhaps we can get back to the war in ukraine.  If anything the flexibility and depth of the capitalist system is making a good showing against the dogmatic intransigence of the autocrat in moscow in which failure is rewarded not by bankruptcy but by doubling down.

If this is solely about Russian elites, my perception is that this is a very valid statement. If it's about right leaning elites in North America and many parts of Europe, I think it's painting with a VERY broad brush as my personal experience indicates otherwise.  And much of that work is done quietly without the need to seek attention.  But---I'd rather not take this discussion further into unrelated topics so I will not reply further.
Maybe it's just me, but second guessing or questioning Poland's contribution to Ukraine over the past 12 months would put one on the deep side of a losing argument. But that's just me.
All the talk about the delay in getting weapons and training to Ukraine, shortages of ammunition and questioning whether Ukraine can hold the Russians off until the cavalry arrives late Spring or early Summer, makes me wonder whether the arms and ammunition are already in-country and ready to flatten a Russian advance.  It makes no sense to hear so much discussion about what Ukraine doesn't have, their weaknesses.  
Would Russia be able to accurately detect a large buildup of Ukrainian forces?  Tanks, new airplanes, additional long-range missiles, etc.   Is it possible that Ukraine is simply waiting for Russia to expose themselves by going on the offensive, then unleash holy Hell only on the Russians?  Is it possible to "hide" or conceal a significant amount of new military hardware?

thanks for that uplifting positive message on Valentine's day.  Did you buy your wife dead flowers?